Jump to content

lung cancer screening - NOT GOOD NEWS


teresag

Recommended Posts

The Cochrane Database is compiled by a group of researchers who meta-analyze health studies (that is, they statistically combine many different trials to form reliable conclusions.) Their conclusions are widely respected. Note that this meta-analysis did not include any studies of CT screening, which is currently being evaluated in the Lung Screening Trial.

http://cancer.gov/NLST

____________________________________________________________

Authors

Manser, RL; Irving, LB; Stone, C; Byrnes, G; Abramson, M; Campbell, D

Title

Screening for lung cancer.

Source

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1, 2005.

Abstract

Background:

While population based screening for lung cancer has not been adopted by most countries, it is not clear whether sputum examinations, chest radiography or newer methods such as computed tomography are effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer.

Objectives:

To determine whether screening for lung cancer using regular sputum examinations or chest radiography or CT chest reduces lung cancer mortality.

Search strategy:

Electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE and EMBASE; 1966 to July 2000)), bibliographies, hand searching of a journal and discussion with experts were used to identify published and unpublished trials.

Selection criteria:

Controlled trials of screening for lung cancer using sputum examinations, chest radiography or CT chest.

Data collection and analysis:

Intention to screen analysis was performed. Where there was significant statistical heterogeneity relative risks were reported using the random effects model, but for other outcomes the fixed effect model was used.

Main results:

Seven trials were included (6 randomised controlled studies and 1 non-randomised controlled trial) with a total of 245,610 subjects. There were no studies with an unscreened control group. Frequent screening with chest x-rays was associated with an 11% relative increase in mortality from lung cancer compared with less frequent screening (RR 1.11, CI: 1.00-1.23). A non statistically significant trend was observed to reduced mortality from lung cancer when screening with chest x-ray and sputum cytology was compared with chest x-ray alone (RR 0.88, CI:0.74-1.03). Several of the included studies had potential methodological weaknesses. There were no controlled studies of spiral CT.

Conclusions:

The current evidence does not support screening for lung cancer with chest radiography or sputum cytology. Frequent chest x-ray screening might be harmful. Further, methodologically rigorous trials are required.

___________________________________________________________

Please note that the fact that chest x-ray screening "might be harmful" does not necessarily mean that the x-ray itself is harmful. It may mean that benign tumors were detected more often, and therefore patients were subjected to diagnostic procedures that carried risk, such as invasive biopsies. The article says, "The results of this review should be interpreted with caution. We identified potentially important methodological weaknesses in most of the studies included in the review."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't good. We need an early detection method that screens for lung cancer, that is accurate, and that isn't harmful. Is that too much to ask?

LOL

Let's hope they keep working on it to find the answer. It's imperative that we find one quickly.

Thanks for posting this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

I haven't read the full article but I did have a thought when reading this section of the conclusion:

"Frequent screening with chest x-rays was associated with an 11% relative increase in mortality from lung cancer compared with less frequent screening" (RR 1.11, CI: 1.00-1.23

Is it a possiblity that the increase in mortality seen with frequent x-rays is a reflection that patients with more advanced disease have more frequent x-rays. And as patients with more advanced disease have an increased mortality, perhaps this statistics are a reflection of this. I wonder if the study controlled for stage of disease as a confounding factor????

Cheers

Jana

x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.