• Krystal L Cleven, Brandon Vaeth, Rachel Zeig-Owens, Hilary L Colbeth, Nadia Jaber, Theresa Schwartz, Michael D Weiden, Steven B Markowitz, Gerard A Silvestri, and David J Prezant.
• Pulmonary Medicine Division, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
• Chest. 2021 May 1; 159 (5): 2060-2071.

BackgroundLung cancer is a leading cause of cancer incidence and death in the United States. Risk factor-based guidelines and risk model-based strategies are used to identify patients who could benefit from low-dose chest CT (LDCT) screening. Few studies compare guidelines or models within the same cohort. We evaluate lung cancer screening performance of two risk factor-based guidelines (US Preventive Services Task Force 2014 recommendations [USPSTF-2014] and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Group 2 [NCCN-2]) and two risk model-based strategies, Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening (PLCOm2012) and the Bach model) in the same occupational cohort.Research QuestionWhich risk factor-based guideline or model-based strategy is most accurate in detecting lung cancers in a highly exposed occupational cohort?Study Design And MethodsFire Department of City of New York (FDNY) rescue/recovery workers exposed to the September 11, 2001 attacks underwent LDCT lung cancer screening based on smoking history and age. The USPSTF-2014, NCCN-2, PLCOm2012 model, and Bach model were retrospectively applied to determine how many lung cancers were diagnosed using each approach.ResultsAmong the study population (N = 3,953), 930 underwent a baseline scan that met at least one risk factor or model-based LDCT screening strategy; 73% received annual follow-up scans. Among the 3,953, 63 lung cancers were diagnosed, of which 50 were detected by at least one LDCT screening strategy. The NCCN-2 guideline was the most sensitive (79.4%; 50/63). When compared with NCCN-2, stricter age and smoking criteria reduced sensitivity of the other guidelines/models (USPSTF-2014 [44%], PLCOm2012 [51%], and Bach[46%]). The 13 missed lung cancers were mainly attributable to smoking less and quitting longer than guideline/model eligibility criteria. False-positive rates were similar across all four guidelines/models.InterpretationIn this cohort, our findings support expanding eligibility for LDCT lung cancer screening by lowering smoking history from ≥30 to ≥20 pack-years and age from 55 years to 50 years old. Additional studies are needed to determine its generalizability to other occupational/environmental exposed cohorts.Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

5 keywords...

hide…