Results of the Randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with Focus on High-Risk Profiling.

RATIONALE: As of April 2015, participants in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial had been followed for at least 5 years since their last screening. OBJECTIVES: Mortality, causes of death, and lung cancer findings are reported to explore the effect of computed tomography (CT) screening. METHODS: A total of 4,104 participants aged 50-70 years at the time of inclusion and with a minimum 20 pack-years of smoking were randomized to have five annual low-dose CT scans (study group) or no screening (control group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Follow-up information regarding date and cause of death, lung cancer diagnosis, cancer stage, and histology was obtained from national registries. No differences between the two groups in lung cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.6; P = 0.888) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.27; P = 0.867) were observed. More cancers were found in the screening group than in the no-screening group (100 vs. 53, respectively; P < 0.001), particularly adenocarcinomas (58 vs. 18, respectively; P < 0.001). More early-stage cancers (stages I and II, 54 vs. 10, respectively; P < 0.001) and stage IIIa cancers (15 vs. 3, respectively; P = 0.009) were found in the screening group than in the control group. Stage IV cancers were nonsignificantly more frequent in the control group than in the screening group (32 vs. 23, respectively; P = 0.278). For the highest-stage cancers (T4N3M1, 21 vs. 8, respectively; P = 0.025), this difference was statistically significant, indicating an absolute stage shift. Older participants, those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and those with more than 35 pack-years of smoking had a significantly increased risk of death due to lung cancer, with nonsignificantly fewer deaths in the screening group. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant effects of CT screening on lung cancer mortality were found, but the results of post hoc high-risk subgroup analyses showed nonsignificant trends that seem to be in good agreement with the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00496977).

Psychosocial consequences in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST).

OBJECTIVES: To measure the psychosocial consequences in the Danish lung cancer screening trial (DLCST) and compare those between the computed tomography (CT) group and the control group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a single centre randomised controlled trial with five annual screening rounds. Healthy current or former heavy smokers aged 50-70 years (men and women) were randomised 1:1 to a CT group and a control group. Heavy smokers were defined by having smoked ≥20 pack years and former smokers by being abstinent ≤10 years. Both groups were invited annually to the screening clinic to complete the validated lung-cancer-specific questionnaire consequences of screening lung cancer (COS-LC). The CT group was also offered a low dose CT scan of the lungs. The COS-LC measures nine scales with psychosocial properties: Anxiety, Behaviour, Dejection, Negative impact on sleep, Self-blame, Focus on Airway Symptoms, Stigmatisation, Introvert, and Harm of Smoking. RESULTS: 4104 participants were randomised to the DLCST and the COS-LC completion rates for the CT group and the control group were 95.5% and 73.6%, respectively. There was a significant increase in negative psychosocial consequences from baseline through rounds 2-5 for both the CT group and the control group (mean increase >0, p<.0001 for 3 of 4 possible scales). During rounds 2-5 the control group experienced significantly more negative psychosocial consequences in seven of nine scales compared with the CT group (mean Δ score >0 and p<.033). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer CT-screening trials induced more negative psychosocial reactions in both the CT group and the control group compared with the baseline psychosocial profile. The CT group experienced less negative psychosocial consequences compared with the control group, which might be explained by reassurance among those with normal screening results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00496977.

Healthcare costs in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer CT-screening trial: a registry study.

OBJECTIVES: Low dose computerised tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer can reduce lung-cancer-specific mortality. The objective of this study was to analyse healthcare costs and healthcare utilisation of participants in the Danish lung cancer CT-screening trial (DLCST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This registry study was nested in a randomised controlled trial (DLCST). 4104 participants, current or former heavy smokers, aged 50-70 years were randomised to five annual low dose CT scans or usual care during 2004-2010. Total healthcare costs and healthcare utilisation data for both the primary and the secondary healthcare sector were retrieved from public registries from randomisation - September 2011 and compared between (1) the CT-screening group and the control group and, (2) the control group and each of the true-positive, false-positive and true-negative groups. RESULTS: The median annual costs per participant were significantly higher in the CT-screening group (Euros [EUR] 1342, interquartile range [IQR] 750-2980) compared with the control group (EUR 1190, IQR 590-2692) (p<0.0001). When the cost of the CT-screening programme was excluded, there was no longer a statistically significant difference between the CT-screening group (EUR 1155, IQR 567-2798) and the control group (p=0.52). Analyses according to the diagnostic groups showed that annual costs were 10.57 (95% CI 7.09-15.75) times higher for the true-positive and 1.67 (95% CI 1.20-2.32) times higher for the false-positive group compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: Low dose lung cancer CT screening increases healthcare costs compared with no screening; this difference was attributable to the costs of the CT-screening programme. Overall healthcare costs were higher for the true-positive and false-positive groups than for the control group, also when excluding the cost of the CT-screening programme. This increase was outweighed by the larger true-negative group showing no significant differences in costs compared with the control group.