Lung Cancer Screening With Low Dose Computed Tomography in Patients With and Without Prior History of Cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial

Patients with a prior history of cancer (PHC) are at increased risk of second primary malignancy, of which lung cancer is the most common. We compared the performance metrics of positive screening rates and cancer detection rates (CDRs) among those with versus without PHC. We conducted a secondary a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of thoracic oncology 2021-06, Vol.16 (6), p.980-989
Hauptverfasser: Henderson, Louise M., Durham, Danielle D., Tammemägi, Martin C., Benefield, Thad, Marsh, Mary W., Rivera, M. Patricia
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Patients with a prior history of cancer (PHC) are at increased risk of second primary malignancy, of which lung cancer is the most common. We compared the performance metrics of positive screening rates and cancer detection rates (CDRs) among those with versus without PHC. We conducted a secondary analysis of 26,366 National Lung Screening Trial participants screened with low dose computed tomography between August 2002 and September 2007. We evaluated absolute rates and age-adjusted relative risks (RRs) of positive screening rates on the basis of retrospective Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) application, invasive diagnostic procedure rate, complication rate, and CDR in those with versus without PHC using a binary logistic regression model using Firth’s penalized likelihood. We also compared cancer type, stage, and treatment in those with versus without PHC. A total of 4.1% (n = 1071) of patients had PHC. Age-adjusted rates of positive findings were similar in those with versus without PHC (Baseline: PHC = 13.7% versus no PHC = 13.3%, RR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.04 [0.88–1.24]; Subsequent: PHC = 5.6% versus no PHC = 5.5%, RR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.84–1.23]). Age-adjusted CDRs were higher in those with versus without PHC on baseline (PHC=1.9% versus no PHC = 0.8%, RR [95% CI]: 2.51 [1.67–3.81]) but not on subsequent screenings (PHC = 0.6% versus no PHC = 0.4%, RR [95% CI]: 1.37 [0.99–1.93]). There were no differences in cancer stage, type, or treatment by PHC status. Patients with PHC may benefit from lung cancer screening, and with their providers, should be made aware of the possibility of higher cancer detection, invasive procedures, and complication rates on baseline lung cancer screening, but not on subsequent low dose computed tomography screening examinations.
ISSN:1556-0864
1556-1380
DOI:10.1016/j.jtho.2021.02.003