Abstract

Simple SummarySmoking causes the majority of lung cancers. Smoking history is thus used to select individuals among whom screening for lung cancer could be the most beneficial. The aim of our study was to estimate sensitivity and specificity of pre-selection by heavy smoking in individual European countries. Due to differences in smoking histories across the countries and sexes within the countries, the sensitivities were found to be between 33 and 80% for men and between 9 and 79% for women. Corresponding specificities of heavy smoking varied between 48 and 90% (men) and 70 and 99% (women). Our results may inform the design of lung cancer screening programs in European countries and serve as benchmarks for novel alternative or complementary tests for selecting people at high risk for computed tomography-based lung cancer screening.Lung cancer (LC) screening often focuses heavy smokers as a target for screening group. Heavy smoking can thus be regarded as an LC pre-screening test with sensitivities and specificities being different in various populations due to the differences in smoking histories. We derive here expected sensitivities and specificities of various criteria to preselect individuals for LC screening in 27 European countries with diverse smoking prevalences. Sensitivities of various heavy-smoking-based pre-screening criteria were estimated by combining sex-specific proportions of people meeting these criteria in the target population for screening with associations of heavy smoking with LC risk. Expected specificities were approximated by the proportion of individuals not meeting the heavy smoking definition. Estimated sensitivities and specificities varied widely across countries, with sensitivities being generally higher among men (range: 33–80%) than among women (range: 9–79%), and specificities being generally lower among men (range: 48–90%) than among women (range: 70–99%). Major variation in sensitivities and specificities was also seen across different pre-selection criteria for LC screening within individual countries. Our results may inform the design of LC screening programs in European countries and serve as benchmarks for novel alternative or complementary tests for selecting people at high risk for CT-based LC screening.

Highlights

  • Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both men and women, accounting for more than 1.7 million deaths each year globally [1]

  • Prevalence of current smoking ranged from 48% among Latvian men to 10% among men from Sweden, and the proportion of never smokers ranged from 22% among Greek men to 80% among women from Cyprus

  • We demonstrated that the same criterion may lead to strongly varying sensitivities and specificities when applied to European countries with strongly varying smoking histories, with sensitivities generally expected to be higher and specificities generally expected to be lower in countries with higher smoking prevalences than in countries with lower smoking prevalences and among men than among women

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both men and women, accounting for more than 1.7 million deaths each year globally [1]. Due to asymptomatic onset of the disease, most LC cases are detected at advanced stages when chances of cure are very limited. Major efforts have been made to lower the burden of LC mortality by effective early detection. The U.S National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a 20% reduction of LC-specific mortality by low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared to chest X-ray screening [3]. The effectiveness of low-dose CT screening was recently reconfirmed by the largest European randomized trial (NELSON study) after 10 years of follow-up (reduction in LC mortality of 24% and 33% as compared to no screening among men and women, respectively) [4]. The employed screening strategies, though, still suffer from high rates of false positive results, considerable resource requirements, and not yet fully determined potential harms, e.g., due to ionizing radiation

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call