Author’s Reply

Abstract

I am grateful to David Yankelevitz, MD, for pointing out what he believes to be errors in my February editorial in JACR [ 1 Hillman B.J. CT screening for lung cancer: appearances can be deceiving. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007; 4: 83-85 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar ]. However, his “Who? Us?” response to my concern over the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) [ 2 Henschke C.I. Yankelevitz D.F. Libby D.M. Pasmantier M.W. Smith J.P. Miettinen O.S. International Early Lung Cancer Action Program InvestigatorsSurvival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 1763-1771 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1397) Google Scholar ] exhortation to promote generalized computed tomographic screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations on the basis of their findings seems to me naive. I leave it to the readers of JACR to reread the last paragraph of the discussion in the 2006 I-ELCAP report and review interviews [ 3 Goldberg P. Henschke says her observational study should change medical practice. Cancer Lett. 2006; 32: 1-8 Google Scholar ] given by I-ELCAP authors at the time of the publication to determine which of us more closely characterizes the situation. CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Editorials Can Be DeceivingJournal of the American College of RadiologyVol. 4Issue 6PreviewIn his editorial titled “CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Appearances Can Be Deceiving,” Bruce Hillman, MD, [1] addressed the most recent publication of the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) [2]. The editorial’s title refers to Hillman’s point that the I-ELCAP investigators’ “simple message,” namely, that computed tomographic (CT) screening “works, and everyone at risk ought to undergo it,” has deceived an “unexpected” number of radiologists who “ought to better understand the flaws in drawing definitive conclusions from the I-ELCAP report.” Full-Text PDF