Finding needles in a haystack: Annual low-dose computed tomography screening reduces lung cancer mortality in a high-risk group

Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy

Volumn 11, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1833-1836

  Duke, Simon L ^a   Eisen, Tim ^a  

^a St John's Innovation Centre   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

computed tomography; lung cancer; screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG CANCER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 82355184371     PISSN: 14737140     EISSN: 17448328     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/era.11.185     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ezzati M, Henley S J, Lopez AD, Thun MJ. Role of smoking in global and regional cancer epidemiology: current patterns and data needs. Int. J. Cancer 116, 963-971 (2005). (Pubitemid 41209205)
2. Coleman M, Forman D, Bryant H et al. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995-2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): An analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet 377(9760), 99-101 (2011).
3. Manser RL, Irving LB, Byrnes G, Abramson MJ, Stone CA, Campbell DA. Screening for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Thorax 58(9), 784-789 (2003). (Pubitemid 37094055)
4. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Libby DM, Pasmantier MW, Smith JP, Miettinen OS. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 355 (17), 1763-1771 (2006). (Pubitemid 44631359)
5. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 258(1), 243-253 (2010).
6. Hocking WG, Hu P, Oken MM et al. Lung cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102(10), 722-731 (2010).
7. Wisnivesky JP, Mushlin AI, Sicherman N, Henschke C. The cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: Preliminary results of baseline screening. Chest 124(2), 614-621 (2003). (Pubitemid 37000142)
8. Manser R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer 48(2), 171-185 (2005).
9. Marcus PM, Bergstrahl EJ, Zweig MH, Harris A, Offord KP, Fontana RS. Extended lung cancer incidence follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and overdiagnosis. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 748-756 (2006). (Pubitemid 43983298)
10. Silvestri GA, Nietert PJ, Zoller J et al. Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts. Thorax 62, 126-130 (2007).
11. Whynes DK. Could CT screening for lung cancer ever be cost effective in the United Kingdom? Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 6, 5 (2008).
12. Van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G et al. Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON).Int. J. Cancer 120, 868-874 (2007). (Pubitemid 46175408)
13. Baldwin DR, Duffy SW, Wald NJ, Page R, Hansell DM, Field JK. UK Lung Screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Thorax 66, 308-313 (2011).
14. Cassidy A, Myles J, van-Tongeren M et al. The LLP risk model: An individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br. J. Cancer 98, 270-276 (2008). (Pubitemid 351161249)
15. Rudd MF, Webb EL, Matakidou A et al.; GELCAPS Consortium. Variants in the GH-IGF axis confer susceptibility to lung cancer. Genome Res. 16(6), 693-701 (2006). (Pubitemid 43830689)
16. Tufman A, Huber RM. Biological markers in lung cancer: A clinician's perspective. Cancer Biomark. 6(3-4), 123-135 (2010).
17. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. Am. J. Prev. Med. 20(Suppl. 3), 21-35 (2001). (Pubitemid 33732964)