4.5 Article

Assessment of lung-cancer mortality reduction from CT Screening

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 71, Issue 3, Pages 328-332

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.10.025

Keywords

Lung cancer; CT screening; Mortality reduction; CARET; CPS-II

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-CA-63393, R01-CA-78905]
  2. The City of New York, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research (NYSTAR)
  3. General Electric
  4. Kodak
  5. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield
  6. The Starr Foundation
  7. Ernest E. Stempel Foundation
  8. The New York Community Trust
  9. The Rogers Family Fund
  10. AMDeC Foundation, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: CT screening has been shown to increase lung cancer curability and we now assess the corresponding reduction in lung cancer mortality. Methods: Lung-cancer mortality in a cohort of 7995 smokers who underwent CT screening for lung cancer in New York State (NYS) was compared with two unscreened cohorts (CPS-II and CARET). The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of observed to expected lung cancer deaths for NYS was jointly adjusted for age, sex, and smoking history. As more current NYS smokers might have quit as a result of the screening, thus reducing deaths from lung cancer, another analysis was restricted to those participants smoking at entry and still smoking 6 years later. Results: The SMR was 64/99.8 = 0.64 (P = 0.84 x 10(-4)) and 28/77.6 = 0.36 (P = 0.83 x 10(-10)), showing a significant reduction in deaths from lung cancer of 36% and 64% for CPS-II and CARET, respectively. Considering participants who were smoking at entry and still smoking 6 years later, the SMR using CPS-II rates was 29/49.1 = 0.59 (P = 0.001) and using CARET rates it was 21/57.4 = 0.37 (P = 0.31 x 10(-7)). Conclusions: CT screening significantly reduces lung-cancer mortality. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available