Abstract

Current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer (LC) screening guidelines are based on smoking history and age (55-80). These guidelines may miss those at higher risk, even at younger ages, due to other risk factors such as race or family history. In this study, we characterize the demographic/clinical profiles of those who are selected by risk-based screening criteria, but missed by USPSTF in younger (45-54) or older ages (71-80). We used data from the National Health Interview Survey, the CISNET Smoking History Generator, and logistic prediction models for non-smoking risk factors to simulate life-time LC risk-factor data for 100,000 men and women in the U.S. 1950-1960 birth cohorts. We calculated age-specific 6-year LC risk (r) for each individual from ages 45-90 using the PLCOm2012 model. We evaluated age-specific screening-eligibility by USPSTF guidelines and by risk-based criteria (varying thresholds between 1.3%-2.5%). In the 1950 cohort, 6.73% would be missed for screening in their younger ages by the USPSTF-criteria, but would have been screened by the risk-based criteria. Similarly, 13.97% of the cohort would be ineligible for screening by USPSTF in older ages. Notably, a higher proportion of African Americans will be ineligible for screening by USPSTF at younger (25.6%) or older (19.7%) ages, which is significantly higher than for Whites (7.7% and 15.75% respectively). Similar results were observed for other risk thresholds and for the 1960 cohort. Further consideration is needed to incorporate comprehensive risk factors, including race/ethnicity, into lung screening criteria to reduce potential racial disparities.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.