[Lung cancer screening with low dose CT requires careful consideration].

Results from the American National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) show a significant reduction in lung cancer and all-cause mortality in a high risk population screened with annual low-dose CT. Handling of pulmonary nodules, false positive tests, overdiagnosis, psychosocial consequences and cost-efficiency etc. are all aspects that require careful consideration. This paper gives an overview of the current knowledge on these issues. Before a recommendation can be made, we need an overall evaluation of both the benefits and harms in CT screening for lung cancer.

[Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT - Danish and international results].

Lung cancer is the cancer type that causes the largest number of deaths in Denmark. With advances in medical imaging and widespread use of computed tomography (CT), it is possible to detect even small abnormalities in lung tissue. This has led to a great interest in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT and launching of randomised screening trials worldwide. This paper gives an overview of the current lung cancer screening trials in Denmark and internationally and focuses on main lung cancer findings and mortality results.

CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease. The randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: status after five annual screening rounds with low-dose CT.

BACKGROUND: The effects of low-dose CT screening on disease stage shift, mortality and overdiagnosis are unclear. Lung cancer findings and mortality rates are reported at the end of screening in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial. METHODS: 4104 men and women, healthy heavy smokers/former smokers were randomised to five annual low-dose CT screenings or no screening. Two experienced chest radiologists read all CT scans and registered the location, size and morphology of nodules. Nodules between 5 and 15 mm without benign characteristics were rescanned after 3 months. Growing nodules (>25% volume increase and/or volume doubling time<400 days) and nodules >15 mm were referred for diagnostic workup. In the control group, lung cancers were diagnosed and treated outside the study by the usual clinical practice. RESULTS: Participation rates were high in both groups (screening: 95.5%; control: 93.0%; p<0.001). Lung cancer detection rate was 0.83% at baseline and mean annual detection rate was 0.67% at incidence rounds (p=0.535). More lung cancers were diagnosed in the screening group (69 vs. 24, p<0.001), and more were low stage (48 vs 21 stage I-IIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and limited stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), p=0.002), whereas frequencies of high-stage lung cancer were the same (21 vs 16 stage IIIA-IV NSCLC and extensive stage SCLC, p=0.509). At the end of screening, 61 patients died in the screening group and 42 in the control group (p=0.059). 15 and 11 died of lung cancer, respectively (p=0.428). CONCLUSION: CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease, and at this point no stage shift or reduction in mortality was observed. More lung cancers were diagnosed in the screening group, indicating some degree of overdiagnosis and need for longer follow-up.