Lung Cancer Screening: Balancing Benefits and Harms for Appropriate Patient Selection

Core Concepts

Lung cancer screening can provide benefits, but it is crucial to carefully select appropriate candidates to ensure the risk-benefit ratio is favorable, especially for individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities.

Abstract

The article discusses the challenges surrounding lung cancer screening, particularly in the context of the United States and the upcoming RISP program in Italy.
The study conducted in the US found that many individuals, including those with a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit, underwent lung cancer screening. The authors interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant smoking history and various comorbidities, and 26 of them had accepted the screening test. The respondents cited reasons such as "to take care of my health," "because it was recommended by a doctor," and "because I don't want to regret not accepting it," without considering their poor health or limited life expectancy.
The article highlights the potential harms of lung cancer screening, including overdiagnosis, stress from false positives, and complications from further investigations and treatments. Many participants were unaware of these potential harms and stated that they might not undergo further tests or treatments, especially if they were intensive or invasive.
The authors emphasize the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities, as the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
In Italy, the RISP program for early lung cancer diagnosis has been launched, supported by European funds and coordinated by the National Cancer Institute in Milan. The program aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy. The article highlights the importance of optimizing participant selection to ensure the program's effectiveness. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years who are current or recent smokers with a specific smoking history.
The economic aspect is also crucial in determining the effectiveness of screening. The program aims to demonstrate that by anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, and healthcare costs are reduced, which is important given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system.

Stats

"to take care of my health and achieve my life goals"
"because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues"
"because it was recommended by a doctor I trust"
"because I don't want to regret not accepting it"
"If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources"
"We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient's life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there's no need for therapy, so there's a saving."

Quotes

"Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly."
"If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources."
"We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient's life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there's no need for therapy, so there's a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system."

Key Insights Distilled From

Why Lung Cancer Screening Is Not for Everyone

by Elena Ribold... at www.medscape.com 04-19-2024

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/why-lung-cancer-screening-not-everyone-2024a10007kr

Deeper Inquiries

How can healthcare providers effectively communicate the potential harms and limitations of lung cancer screening to patients, especially those with comorbidities and limited life expectancy, to ensure informed decision-making?

Healthcare providers can effectively communicate the potential harms and limitations of lung cancer screening to patients by engaging in shared decision-making. This involves discussing the risks and benefits of screening in a clear and understandable manner, tailored to the individual's health status and life expectancy. Providers should emphasize the concept of overdiagnosis, the stress associated with false positives, and the complications and risks of further investigations and treatments. Using decision aids, such as informational pamphlets or videos, can also help patients comprehend the information and make informed choices. Additionally, providers should encourage open dialogue, address any misconceptions, and involve patients in the decision-making process to ensure that they understand the implications of screening.

What alternative screening or early detection strategies could be explored for high-risk individuals who may not benefit from traditional lung cancer screening programs?

For high-risk individuals who may not benefit from traditional lung cancer screening programs, alternative screening or early detection strategies could be explored. One option is to focus on personalized risk assessment tools that consider factors beyond smoking history, such as genetic predisposition, environmental exposures, and other comorbidities. Biomarker testing, such as liquid biopsy or sputum cytology, could also be utilized to detect early signs of lung cancer in high-risk individuals. Moreover, incorporating advanced imaging techniques like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or positron emission tomography (PET) scans may enhance the detection of lung cancer in individuals who are not suitable candidates for traditional screening methods. These alternative strategies can help tailor screening approaches to the specific needs and risks of high-risk individuals.

How can the economic impact of lung cancer screening programs be accurately assessed, and what other factors beyond cost savings should be considered in evaluating the overall value and sustainability of these initiatives?

The economic impact of lung cancer screening programs can be accurately assessed by conducting cost-effectiveness analyses that consider both the direct costs of screening and the potential savings from early detection and treatment. Factors such as the cost of screening tests, follow-up procedures, treatment interventions, and long-term care should be included in the economic evaluation. Additionally, indirect costs, such as productivity losses, caregiver burden, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), should be considered to provide a comprehensive assessment of the program's economic impact. Beyond cost savings, other factors like patient outcomes, quality of life improvements, equity in access to screening, and societal benefits should be evaluated to determine the overall value and sustainability of lung cancer screening initiatives. By considering a wide range of economic and non-economic factors, policymakers and healthcare providers can make informed decisions about the implementation and continuation of screening programs.