Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

Comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes for all lung cancer patients, but its burden is less understood in the context of screening. This review synthesises the prevalence of comorbidities among lung cancer screening (LCS) candidates and summarises the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL databases from January 1990 to February 2021. We included LCS studies that reported a prevalence of comorbidity, as a prevalence of a particular condition, or as a summary score. We also summarised LCS clinical guidelines that addressed comorbidity or frailty for LCS as a secondary objective for this review. Meta-analysis was used with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model to estimate the prevalence of selected comorbidities.

Results

We included 69 studies in the review; seven reported comorbidity summary scores, two reported performance status, 48 reported individual comorbidities, and 12 were clinical guideline papers. The meta-analysis of individual comorbidities resulted in an estimated prevalence of 35.2% for hypertension, 23.5% for history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (10.7% for severe COPD), 16.6% for ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 13.1% for peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 12.9% for asthma, 12.5% for diabetes, 4.5% for bronchiectasis, 2.2% for stroke, and 0.5% for pulmonary fibrosis.

Conclusions

Comorbidities were highly prevalent in LCS populations and likely to be more prevalent than in other cancer screening programmes. Further research on the burden of comorbid disease and its impact on screening uptake and outcomes is needed. Identifying individuals with frailty and comorbidities who might not benefit from screening should become a priority in LCS research.

Keywords

Lung cancer screening comorbidity low-dose computed tomography frailty

Introduction

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths globally, with 1.8 million estimated deaths in 2020.¹ The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 16–22% in high-income countries.² Patients with localised lung cancers have better five-year survival rates (above 50%) compared to most advanced distant stages (less than 10%).^3,4 This large disparity highlights the crucial role of early detection in maximising the survival benefit for high-risk individuals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was the first large-scale randomised study that reported a mortality benefit, with an estimated 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality using pulmonary low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) compared to X-ray.⁵ In addition, the Dutch-Belgian Randomised Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON) demonstrated a 24% reduction in male lung cancer mortality.⁶ Following the NLST results, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its recommendations in 2013 for annual screening of lung cancer with LDCT for current or former smokers aged 55 to 80 years. However, participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) among eligible smokers in the United States (US) has been limited to 6.6% on average in 2019 and remained the same in 2020.⁷ When looking at the US state-level LCS uptake rates; nine states reported to have more than 10% participation rate.⁷ In contrast, population-based LCS programmes in several Chinese provinces showed high uptake rates of 34%-52%.^8–10 The high uptake in China is believed to be owing mainly to the accessibility and affordability of LDCT scans across many provinces.¹¹ While LCS in the UK is not yet implemented on the national level, data from population-based targeted screening in Liverpool and Manchester showed high participation rates of 40% and 26%, respectively.^12,13 The presence of chronic diseases may positively impact participation in screening programmes because comorbid individuals might have direct contact with healthcare systems and services, leading to more opportunities for referral to or engagement with screening services primarily when LCS is widely implemented such as in the US.¹⁴ However, the presence of comorbidities might limit management options for screen-detected lung cancer (mainly surgical resection), thereby impacting the effectiveness of treatments and patient outcomes.¹⁵ Also, reduced life expectancy related to comorbidity would limit the life-years gained through early detection by screening, especially in people with advanced or life-threatening illnesses.¹⁶ The burden of comorbidity in LCS candidates has not previously been estimated. We systematically reviewed the literature and utilised meta-analysis to obtain an overall estimate of the prevalence of comorbidities among high-risk populations who were selected for LCS. Additionally, LCS guidelines and recommendations were identified and summarised with respect to how they addressed comorbidities and frailty.

Methods

Search strategy and inclusion criteria

A systematic search was conducted in February 2021 to identify evidence regarding the comorbidity and frailty status of LCS (or screen-eligible) participants. The review protocol is registered on the PROSPERO database (Registration number CRD42021237040) and is available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=237040. The search was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), EBM reviews- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (OVID) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases. The timeframe was from 1 January 1990 to 8 February 2021 with no language restriction, using a strategy of subject headings and free text words (Appendix 1, see online supplementary files). The timeframe of 1990 was used as a start point to adequately capture studies investigating the utilisation of LDCT for LCS. We excluded case reports, case series, modelling studies, qualitative studies, conference abstracts, reviews, commentary, and editor letters. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility using Rayyan software.¹⁷ Studies were considered for inclusion if they were 1) conducted in a LCS setting that included screened or high-risk eligible participants, and 2) reported comorbidity or frailty status; either as a prevalence of a specific condition, proportion, or a summary score (e.g. the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)).^18,19 A 20% sample of the total identified titles and abstracts was doubled screened by a second reviewer (OT), and disagreements were resolved through consensus. We have also considered and included clinical guidelines and recommendations that addressed comorbidity or frailty in the context of LCS as a supplementary goal of the review. No specific keywords were added to identify clinical guidelines as we relied on our main keyword strategy to include these articles.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction form by one author (AA), and a 20% sample of extracted data was independently checked by another author (OT). Comorbidity prevalence was calculated as the number of people with the condition (numerator) divided by the total sample size (denominator). When studies reported only a proportion of a particular comorbidity, the numerator was converted to absolute numbers. Individual comorbidities were chosen based on their 1) clinical relevance to lung cancer (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic bronchitis, bronchiectasis, asthma, and pulmonary fibrosis), 2) competing nature in elevating the risk of death (stroke, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and ischaemic heart disease (IHD)), or 3) frequent reporting in the included studies (type 2 diabetes and hypertension). We utilised the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) to assess the quality of randomised control trials.²⁰ For observational studies (cohort and case-control studies), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias.²¹ A modified version of NOS was used for the quality assessment of cross-sectional studies.²²

Meta-analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted by using the metaprop command in STATA (version 16.1) to provide an overall pooled estimate (proportion) with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model. Confidence intervals were computed using the score method,²³ and heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using I² statistic.²⁴

Results

The initial search identified a total of 5439 records. After removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and excluding not retrieved studies, 335 were included for full-text screening. Two hundred and sixty-six studies were further excluded after the full-text screening, leaving 69 studies that met our inclusion criteria and were considered for final qualitative and quantitative synthesis (Figure 1). Of the 69 included studies, seven reported comorbidity using summary measure scores (Table 1), two reported performance status (Table 1), 48 reported individual comorbidities (Table 2), and 12 publications highlighted the recommendations of undergoing LCS for comorbid or frail individuals (Table 3).

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the selection process according to the PRISMA 2020 statement.

Table 1.

Studies that reported comorbidity/frailty measure score.

1st Author, Year	Design	Setting	Screening status	Country	Participants	Comorbidity/frailty measure	Cases	Total	Percentage	Risk of Bias
Iaccarino, 2018.²⁵	CS	Academic safety-net hospital	Screened	USA	1203	Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI):				8/10*
						0 (good health)	362	1203	30.1%
						1–3 (average health)	640	1203	53.2%
						>4 (poor health)	201	1203	16.7%
Rasmussen, 2015.²⁶	RCT	Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST)	Screened	Denmark	2052	CCI:				Low
						0	1697	2052	82.7%
						1	196	2052	9.6%
						≥2	159	2052	7.7%
Li, 2018.²⁷	RC	Primary care providers	Eligible	USA	12801	CCI:				7/9
						No major comorbidity (CCI = 0)	3911	12801	30.6%
						Mild (CCI = 1–2)	5076	12801	39.7%
						Moderate (CCI = 3–4)	2179	12801	17.0%
						Severe (CCI ≥5)	1635	12801	12.8%
Carroll, 2020.²⁸	RC	Non-profit integrated healthcare system	Screened	USA	3375	CCI:				6/9
						0 (good health)	1130	3375	33.5%
						1–3 (average health)	1820	3375	53.9%
						4 or more (poor health)	425	3375	12.6%
Nishi, 2019.²⁹	CS	Claims data of Medicare beneficiaries	Screened	USA	3673046	Elixhauser comorbidity score:				9/10*
						0	1308685	3673046	35.6%
						1	795487	3673046	21.7%
						2	637809	3673046	17.4%
						3	380835	3673046	10.4%
						4 +	550229	3673046	15.0%
Nishi, 2020.³⁰	CS	Commercial health insurance database	Screened	USA	11520	Elixhauser comorbidity score:				7/10*
						0	2424	11520	21.0%
						1	2788	11520	24.2%
						2	2245	11520	19.5%
						3	1509	11520	13.1%
						4 +	2554	11520	22.2%
Tammemägi, 2014.³¹	RCT	Data from the National Lung Screening Trial	Screened	USA	14661	Number of Comorbidities:				9/10*
						0	6661	14661	45.4%
						1	5014	14661	34.2%
						2	2098	14661	14.3%
						≥3	888	14661	6.1%
Ruparel, 2020.⁴¹	RCT	Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT)	Screened	UK	732	WHO Performance Status:				Low
						0 – asymptomatic	891	996	89.5%
						1 – completely ambulatory	95	996	9.5%
						2 – <50% of day in chair/ bed	9	996	0.9%
						3 – >50% of day in chair/ bed	1	996	0.1%
Crosbie, 2019.¹³	PC	Community-based mobile CT scanners	Screened	UK	1429	Performance status:				9/9
						0	768	1429	53.7%
						1	481	1429	33.7%
						2	152	1429	10.6%
						3	28	1429	2.0%

PC = Prospective cohort study, RC = Retrospective cohort study, CS = Cross-sectional study, RCT = Randomized controlled trial. Risk of bias scores: very high risk of bias (0 to 3), high risk of bias (4 to 6), and low risk of bias (7 to 9) according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). *A modified version of NOS was used to assess the risk of bias for cross-sectional studies.

Table 2.

Studies that reported individual comorbidities.

1st Author, Year	Design	Setting	Screening status	Country	Participants	Risk of Bias
Lebrett, 2020.⁷⁶	PC	Community- based screening	Screened	UK	1410	9/9
De Jong, 2014.⁷⁷	RCT	University medical centre	Screened	Netherlands	1140	Low
Wilson, 2008.⁷⁸	RC	Community-based study	Screened	USA	3638	8/9
Aberle, 2010.⁷⁹	RCT	33 medical institutions	Screened	USA	26723	Low
Park, 2020.⁸⁰	CS	Survey data	Eligible	Korea	4763098	7/10*
Goffin, 2020.⁸¹	PC	Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan)	Screened	Canada	2514	7/9
Marquette, 2020.⁵⁰	PC	21 French university centres	Screened	France	614	7/9
Zhu, 2020.⁸²	PC	LDCT screening for lung cancer in New York State	Screened	USA	8618	5/9
Balkan, 2016.⁸³	CS	Community-based study	Screened	USA	3183	6/10
Jacobs, 2012.⁸⁴	Case-cohort study	RCT	Screened	Netherlands	958	8/9
Leigh, 2017.⁸⁵	PC	Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)	Eligible	USA	481	8/9
Henschke, 2015.⁸⁶	PC	International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP)	Screened	Multinational	62124	6/9
Sekine, 2014.⁸⁷	CS	Community-based study	Screened	Japan	185	7/10*
Welch, 2019.⁸⁸	CS	Construction trades workers	Screened and eligible non- participants	USA	4399	7/10*
Li, 2011.⁸⁹	CC	Mayo clinic	screened	USA	450	7/9
Wilshire, 2020.⁹⁰	CS	Electronic Medical Record Review	Referrals	USA	2843	5/10*
Omori, 2006.⁹¹	CS	Kumamoto Red Cross Hospital	Screened	Japan	615	5/10
Guo, 2020.⁹²	CS	Tertiary-level hospitals	Screened	China	22260	7/10*
Ruparel, 2019.⁹³	CS	The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT)	Screened	UK	770	7/10*
Salvatore, 2016.⁹⁴	CS	LCS programme	Screened	USA	951	5/10*
Anna, 2018.⁹⁵	PC	Single centre	Screened	Hungary	739	7/9
Bons, 2020.⁹⁶	RCT	DLCST	Screened	Denmark	1987	Low
Fu, 2018.⁹⁷	CS	Spanish National Interview Health Survey (ENSE)	Eligible	Spain	1034	8/10*
Regan, 2019.⁵¹	CS	21 clinical centres	Screened	USA	4078	9/10*
Sanchez-Salcedo, 2015.⁹⁸	PC	P-IELCAP & PLuSS	Screened	Spain & USA	P-IELCAP (n = 3061), PLuSS (n = 3638)	6/9
Sim, 2010.⁹⁹	CS	University hospital	Screened	Korea	191	7/10*
Ahmed, 2018.¹⁰⁰	RC	Academic medical centre	Screened	USA	272	6/9
Infante, 2008.¹⁰¹	RCT	DANTE trial	Screened	Italy	1276	Low
Raju, 2020.¹⁰²	CC	Medical centre	Screened and Eligible controls	USA	542 (participants) vs 276 (LDCT eligible controls)	7/9
Sanchez-Salcedo, 2015.¹⁰³	PC	Pamplona International Early Lung Cancer Detection Program (P-IELCAP)	Screened	Spain	2989	6/9
Ostrowski, 2019.¹⁰⁴	PC	Open-access LCA programme	Screened	Poland	8637	6/9
Calabro, 2010.¹⁰⁵	CS	Secondary analysis of an RCT	Screened	Italy	3749	7/10*
Lewis, 2020.¹⁰⁶	RC	Veterans based study	Screened	USA	80819	6/9
Aggarwal, 2019.¹⁰⁷	PC	Princess Margaret Cancer Centre	Screened	Canada	359	7/9
Tammemagi, 2017.¹⁰⁸	PC	8 centres	Screened	Canada	2537	8/9
Guichet, 2018.¹⁰⁹	RC	Community clinics	Screened	USA	275	5/9
Wang, 2001.¹¹⁰	CS	Voluntary screening programme	Screened	Japan	7847	7/10*
Ruparel, 2020.¹¹¹	CS	Lung Screen Uptake Trial	Screened	UK	986	7/10*
Barros, 2018.⁵²	RC	Tertiary hospital	Screened	Brazil	172	5/9
Hopkins, 2017.¹¹²	CS	NLST-ACRIN	Screened	USA	18714	8/10*
Sverzellati, 2012.¹¹³	CS	Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD)	Screened	Italy	1159	6/10*
Rasmussen, 2013.⁵³	CS	Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial	Screened	Denmark	1535	6/10*
Wille, 2016.¹¹⁴	RCT	Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial	Screened	Denmark	2052	Low
Perez-Warnisher, 2019.¹¹⁵	PC	Sleep Apnea In Lung Cancer Screening (SAILS) study	Screened	Spain	236	6/9
Balata, 2020.⁴⁸	CS	Community- based LCS programme	Screened	UK	2541	8/10*
Sekine, 2014.¹¹⁶	CS	Community-based LCS	Screened	Japan	7067	9/10*
Balata, 2018.¹¹⁷	CS	Community- based LCS programme	Screened	UK	958	7/10*
Mets, 2012.¹¹⁸	CS	NELSON trial	Screened	Netherlands	266	6/10*

PC= Prospective cohort study, RC= Retrospective cohort study, CS= Cross-sectional study, RCT= Randomized controlled trial; LCS = lung cancer screening. Risk of bias scores: very high risk of bias (0 to 3), high risk of bias (4 to 6), and low risk of bias (7 to 9) according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). *A modified version of NOS was used to assess the risk of bias for cross-sectional studies.

Table 3.

Clinical guidelines that address the issue of comorbidity among LCS candidates.

Guideline Title	1st Author, Year	Recommendation
The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for LCS	Jaklitsch, 2012.³²	‘Individuals for whom adequate treatment cannot be offered because of comorbidity or functional status, regardless of age, should not undergo screening.’
Screening for lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines	Detterbeck, 2013.³⁴	‘For individuals with severe comorbidities that would preclude potentially curative treatment and/or limit life expectancy, we suggest that CT screening should not be performed (Grade 2C).’
The International Association Study Lung Cancer (IASLC) Strategic Screening Advisory Committee (SSAC) Response to the USPSTF Recommendations	Field, 2014.³⁹	‘It is reasonable to assess fitness before entry to a screening programme and at key intervals thereafter to ensure that (1) screenees are able to undergo, with tolerable risks, both the investigations indicated to evaluate suspicious nodules and the subsequent treatment of suspicious nodules or proven lung cancers, and (2) their life expectancy because of comorbid disease(s) will not prematurely limit their life expectancy relative to the treatment of a documented lung cancer.’
Low-dose computed-tomography lung cancer screening: the first European recommendations from the European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society	Adamek, 2015.¹¹⁹	‘Exclusion criteria: comorbidities precluding curative treatment or lack of consent to undergo radical therapy’
China national lung cancer screening guideline with low-dose computed tomography (2015 version)	Zhou, 2015.³⁸	‘Individuals who have a cancer history within the last five years (except or non-melanoma skin cancer, cervical carcinoma in situ, or localised prostate cancer), cannot tolerate possible lung cancer resection, or have a life-threatening disease, are not recommended for screening.’
Choosing wisely: The Canadian Thoracic Society's list of six things that physicians and patients should question	Gupta, 2017.³⁶	‘Screening also leads to unnecessary anxiety and invasive procedures, which carry their own complications. Accordingly, it should not be used in patients who do not meet these strict criteria nor in patients with a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative therapy.’
Screening for Lung Cancer CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report	Mazzone, 2018.¹²⁰	‘For individuals with comorbidities that adversely influence their ability to tolerate the evaluation of screen-detected findings, or tolerate treatment of an early-stage screen-detected lung cancer, or that substantially limit their life expectancy, we recommend that low-dose CT screening should not be performed. (Strong recommendation, low-quality evidence).’
Consensus statement on a screening programme for the detection of early lung cancer in Poland	Rzyman, 2018.³⁵	‘The decision to join a screening programme should be a shared decision made by the physician and a patient and should be individually discussed, particularly in patients with comorbidities.’
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018	Wood, 2018.³³	‘Screening can be considered for individuals older than 74 years if they have good functional status, do not have serious comorbidities that would impede curative treatment, and are willing to undergo treatment’ & ‘Patients with several comorbid conditions may be at greater risk than those with few or none.’
Incorporating coexisting chronic illness into decisions about patient selection for lung cancer screening. An official American thoracic society research statement	Rivera, 2018.¹⁵	‘There is controversy and confusion regarding who should be offered screening, and future research is needed with the aim of incorporating the balance of risk of LCD, competing causes of death, morbidity, mortality, and efficacy of treatment approaches in the face of comorbidities.’
Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe	Veronesi, 2020.¹²¹	‘As comorbidities (coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, osteoporosis, diabetes) are frequent, they may benefit from treatment, but with a considerable reduction in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Moreover, the ability to deliver effective treatments should be considered’
Screening for Lung Cancer, US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement	Krist, 2021.³⁷	‘The USPSTF recommends discontinuing screening if a person develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery’

When reporting comorbidity using summary measure scores, four studies used the CCI,^25–28 two used the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index,^29,30 and one study used a simple comorbidity count.³¹ We could not perform a meta-analysis of the four studies that utilised CCI as two studies used different sub-categories. The search results did not retrieve any study that directly utilised an established frailty measure, although two studies reported performance status.

Studies that reported individual comorbidities

Most studies were conducted in North America (42%) and Europe (42%), with only seven studies (12%) conducted in Asia, one in Brazil, and one was multinational. The review included studies varied in design with 26 cross-sectional studies, 22 cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and two case-control studies. All RCTs were found to have a low risk of bias. The majority of non-randomised studies (32 studies) were rated as having a low risk of bias (scored between 7 and 10) based on the NOS system, and 18 studies were rated as having a high risk of bias (scored 5 and 6).

Pooled estimations of the prevalence of individual comorbidities among LCS populations are presented in forest plots and included in the supplementary files (Appendix 2). The results show that the estimated prevalence of individual comorbidities sequentially ordered by proportion was: hypertension (35.2%, number of reported cases (c) = 1,498,429, total screening population (n) = 4,812,180), history of COPD (23.5%, c = 9868, n = 67,662), chronic bronchitis (17.2%, c = 31,329; n = 92,102), IHD (16.6%, c = 22,236, n = 94,379), PVD (13.1%, c = 327, n = 2648), asthma (12.9%, c = 4043, n = 36,134), diabetes (12.5%, c = 93,6813, n = 4,822,167), advanced COPD (stage 3 and 4) (10.7%, c = 3747, n = 35,778), bronchiectasis (4.5%, c = 13,221, n = 86,530), stroke (2.2%, c = 1068, n = 42,004), and pulmonary fibrosis (0.55%, c = 102, n = 33,072).

Findings from clinical guidelines

Findings regarding recommendations for screening comorbid individuals set by clinical guidelines are summarised and presented in Table 3. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS)³² and The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)³³ guidelines do not endorse LCS in individuals with limited functional status or comorbidity that might affect potential curative treatment. Other guidelines such as the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST),³⁴ the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and European Respiratory Society (ERS),³⁵ and the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS)³⁶ guidelines condition the screening of comorbid people on their ability to undergo curative treatment without considering functional status or frailty. The USPSTF³⁷ and the Chinese national³⁸ LCS guidelines specify the ability to undergo lung surgery as a criterion for screening individuals with comorbidity or serious health illness. In addition, a consensus statement from Poland recommends that the decision to undergo LCS should be a shared one between the physician and patients with comorbidities,³⁷ Unlike other guidelines, the International Association Study Lung Cancer (IASLC) guideline was the only one that recommended performing fitness assessments for high-risk individuals before their enrolment in LCS programmes.³⁹ Finally, the AATS organised a multidisciplinary panel in 2017 that emphasised the need for future research on incorporating comorbidities and functional status in selecting candidates for LCS.¹⁵

Discussion

This systematic review is the first to estimate the prevalence of comorbidities among LCS populations, evaluating 57 studies and 12 clinical guidelines. Most of the included studies (84%) were from western countries (Europe and North America), and only 12% were conducted in Asia. The total number of included studies in our review is fewer than the total number of LCS studies available in the literature because we find that not all LCS programmes report comorbidity or frailty data. Despite using a comprehensive search strategy, we found only a small fraction of included studies (10%) used validated comorbidity indices, and none utilised a pre-screening validated frailty assessment tool. However, two studies (24, 25) utilised performance status, which might be a proxy for frailty. These findings highlight the underutilisation of comorbidity and frailty measures among LCS population.

Even though only seven studies used comorbidity summary scores, we found that proportions of people without comorbidity (CCI = 0) were higher in clinical trial settings (83% and 45%)^26,31 compared to population-based screening settings (range: 30%-33%),^25,27,28 indicating a potential role of healthy volunteer effect in LCS trials.⁴⁰ The same observation applies to studies that utilised WHO performance status; one RCT⁴¹ reported asymptomatic performance status (score 0) in about 90% of participants compared to 54% from a community-based LDCT screening programme.¹³

The comorbidity profile of LCS participants differs from those reported in breast and colorectal cancer screening programmes. The proportion of individuals without comorbidity (CCI = 0) reported previously in large breast cancer (56%,⁴² 76%,⁴³ 84%,⁴⁴ and 93%⁴⁵) and colorectal cancer (65%,⁴⁶ 52%⁴⁷) screening studies is much higher than what we observed in LCS studies included in our review (30%-33%).^25,27,28 A possible explanation is that breast and colorectal screening programmes sample from the entire community with age as the primary risk factor. In contrast, lung cancer screening relies more on smoking as the leading risk factor, which is associated with comorbidities. This observation highlights the need for more research and innovations to deliver LCS to those with greater life expectancy, considering the presence of comorbidities.

The prevalence of history of COPD was also considered for meta-analysis, resulting in a pooled estimate of 23.5% (95% CI: 16.5, 31.4) from 11 studies. The sub-group analysis by data collection method indicated significant heterogeneity (p < 0.001). The estimated prevalence from studies that utilised health records to identify the history of COPD was 38.7% (95% CI: 31.5, 46.2, I² = 95.6%, p < 0.001) compared to 16.9% (95% CI: 10.5, 24.5, I² = 99.7%, p < 0.001) pooled from studies that relied on self-reporting. This finding suggests that relying on self-reporting of COPD may underestimate the true burden of COPD in a LCS population, potentially misclassifying participants having low risk when using lung cancer risk-prediction methods that incorporate COPD (i.e. PLCO_M2012).^48,49 We also estimated the prevalence of advanced COPD, stages 3 and 4, to be 10.7% (95% CI: 6.1, 16.4), as reported in 12 studies using the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria (www.GOLD.org). Most studies reported a prevalence of advanced COPD of less than 10%, while four reported a prevalence of advanced COPD above 20% (range: 20.3%-31.0%).^50–53 Screening individuals with advanced COPD remains controversial as they may not benefit from screening due to inoperability and an increased risk of respiratory and other competing causes of death.^54,55 The utilisation of functional assessment tools, such as the BODE index,⁵⁶ is suggested to be a better way of assessing the severity and fitness of patients with advanced COPD by incorporating not only the degree of airflow obstruction but also functional dyspnea, body-mass index, and exercise capacity.^15,56

We also estimated the prevalence of four lung diseases: chronic bronchitis, asthma, bronchiectasis, and pulmonary fibrosis. The pooled estimate for chronic bronchitis was 17.2% (95% CI: 5.5, 33.0) among the LCS population and considered higher than what is usually found in the general population, which is around 3%.^57,58 The increasing age and smoking habits could explain the higher prevalence of chronic bronchitis in the LCS population.⁵⁹ Estimate of asthma prevalence was 12.9% (95% CI: 8.3, 18.3), which is more than what is normally observed in the general population.^60,61 A similar observation was reported by Zahnd et al.⁶² when they found that individuals with asthma tend to utilise LCS more than those without asthma (22.9% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.006). Bronchiectasis and pulmonary fibrosis were less prevalent with pooled estimates of 4.5% (95% CI: 0.4, 12.4) and 0.55% (95% CI: 0.18, 1.10), respectively. Previous studies, not captured by our search as we did not include bronchiectasis in our search strategy, reported a prevalence of bronchiectasis ranging from 0.2% to 16%.^63–66 The higher presence of bronchiectasis in the LCS population is suggested to be associated with a higher incidence of new nodules and false-positive results on both baseline and subsequent screening rounds.⁶⁷

In addition to respiratory comorbidities, we estimated the prevalence of ischemic heart disease (IHD), PVD, and strokes as conditions that may have a competing cause of death in the LCS population. We found that IHD was prevalent in 16.6% (95% CI: 11.0, 23.0) of screened candidates across eight studies (9 estimates). The estimated prevalence of IHD in our review is more than twice the prevalence of IHD found in the general population of the United States⁶⁸ and the UK.⁶⁹ Smoking habits and age might explain the elevated IHD prevalence in the LCS population compared to the general population.

The second part of this systematic review is related to the inclusion of comorbidity and frailty in LCS guidelines. Overall, clinical guidelines were generally vague and did not fully address comorbidity or frailty in their LCS recommendations. The ability to tolerate curative treatment before undertaking LCS was agreed upon as an inclusion criterion among most included guidelines. Only the USPSTF³⁷ and the Chinese³⁸ guidelines recommended LCS for people who could withstand lung surgery. The ability to tolerate treatment or withstand surgery is not well defined across clinical guidelines, with little information about how physicians should communicate the benefits and harms of LCS to their patients who have frailty or severe comorbidity. The American Thoracic Society issued a research statement in 2018 acknowledging this dilemma, and outlined future research directions to incorporate the severity of comorbidities and functional status into the selection process.¹⁵

Our review highlighted the current scarcity of pre-screening frailty or functional assessment tools in LCS programmes. Previous studies have demonstrated the association of frailty with poor cancer screening consequences,⁷⁰ postoperative complications,^71,72 and higher mortality of non-cancer causes.^73,74 In addition, the prevalence of frailty among lung cancer patients of different stages was recently estimated to be 45%, with a significant adverse impact on survival.⁷⁵ Future LCS programmes and research should invest in this area by examining the feasibility and usefulness of incorporating a pre-screening assessment of frailty and comorbidity severity.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to estimate the burden of comorbidity among LCS candidates to inform researchers and policymakers about the magnitude of this public health problem. The strengths of this review include utilising a comprehensive search strategy and including a large number of studies. The variability of the methods used to report single comorbidities is a potential limitation of this review, as most studies relied on self-reporting of comorbidities, with only a few studies utilising medical records and administrative databases. As a result, the pooled prevalence estimates should be interpreted with caution. Another limitation is the observed high heterogeneity between studies, and accounting for different study locations and designs didn’t explain this observation. In addition, there might be other clinical guidelines not covered by our review as we didn’t incorporate guidelines-specific keywords in our search strategy.

Conclusion

In this study, we reviewed 57 studies and 12 clinical guidelines to estimate the prevalence of comorbidities in LCS populations and summarise the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals. Detailed prevalence of selected comorbidities was reported. LCS is an essential element of early detection and cancer control and will likely become more available to high-risk individuals in the coming years. Before widely implementing LCS, identifying subpopulations with a high burden of comorbidities and frailty who would be less likely to benefit from screening should become a priority. To optimise the benefits of screening and increase its cost-effectiveness, future LCS research needs to incorporate existing comorbidity and frailty measures and develop new approaches for personalising the selection process.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-msc-10.1177_09691413221117685 - Supplemental material for The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-msc-10.1177_09691413221117685 for The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Anas Almatrafi, Owen Thomas, Matthew Callister, Rhian Gabe, Rebecca J Beeken and Richard Neal in Journal of Medical Screening

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-msc-10.1177_09691413221117685 - Supplemental material for The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-msc-10.1177_09691413221117685 for The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Anas Almatrafi, Owen Thomas, Matthew Callister, Rhian Gabe, Rebecca J Beeken and Richard Neal in Journal of Medical Screening

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-3-msc-10.1177_09691413221117685 - Supplemental material for The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-3-msc-10.1177_09691413221117685 for The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Anas Almatrafi, Owen Thomas, Matthew Callister, Rhian Gabe, Rebecca J Beeken and Richard Neal in Journal of Medical Screening

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability

Prevalence data extracted from all articles are available as a supplementary file (SR_data.xlsx).

ORCID iDs

Anas Almatrafi

Rebecca J Beeken

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ferlay

Ervik

Lam

, et al. Global cancer observatory: cancer today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://gco.iarc.fr/today (2020, accessed 15/06 2021)

Arnold

Rutherford

Lam

, et al. ICBP SURVMARK-2 online tool: International Cancer Survival Benchmarking, http://gco.iarc.fr/survival/survmark (2019, accessed 15/06 2021).

SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics, https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/ (2021, accessed 15/06 2021).

Cancer Research UK. Lung cancer statistics, https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer (2021, accessed 15/06 2021).

National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 395–409.

de Koning

van der Aalst

de Jong

, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 503–513.

Fedewa

Bandi

Smith

, et al. Lung cancer screening rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chest 2022; 161: 586–589

Zhao

Wang

, et al. Preferred lung cancer screening modalities in China: a discrete choice experiment. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13: 6110.

Liang

Shi

, et al. Participation and Yield of a Lung Cancer Screening Program in Hebei, China. 2022; 11. Original Research. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.795528.

10.

Guo

Zhang

Liu

, et al. [Compliance of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography and influencing factors in urban area of Henan province]. Zhonghua liu xing bing xue za zhi = Zhonghua liuxingbingxue zazhi 2020; 41: 1076–1080.

11.

Zhang

Chen

. Lung cancer screening: who pays? Who receives?-the Chinese perspective. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2021; 10: 2389–2394.

12.

Ghimire

Maroni

Vulkan

, et al. Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: the liverpool healthy lung programme. Lung Cancer 2019; 134: 66–71.

13.

Crosbie

Balata

Evison

, et al. Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based 'Lung Health Check' pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Thorax 2019; 74: 405–409.

14.

Terret

Castel-Kremer

Albrand

, et al. Effects of comorbidity on screening and early diagnosis of cancer in elderly people. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 80–87.

15.

Patricia Rivera

Tanner

Silvestri

, et al. Incorporating coexisting chronic illness into decisions about patient selection for lung cancer screening. An official American thoracic society research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 198: e3–e13.

16.

Fabrikant

Wisnivesky

Marron

, et al. Benefits and challenges of lung cancer screening in older adults. Clin Ther 2018; 40: 526–534

17.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Fedorowicz

, et al. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 1–10.

18.

Quan

Sundararajan

Halfon

, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005; 43: 1130–1139.

19.

Charlson

Pompei

Ales

, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373–383.

20.

Sterne

JAC

Savovic

Page

, et al. Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J 2019; 366: l4898.

21.

Wells

Shea

O'Connell

, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. In: 2014.

22.

Herzog

Alvarez-Pasquin

Diaz

, et al. Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2013; 13: 54.

23.

Newcombe

. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998; 17: 857–872

24.

StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC., 2019.

25.

Iaccarino

Steiling

Wiener

. Lung cancer screening in a safety-net hospital: implications of screening a real-world population versus the national lung screening trial. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2018; 15: 1493–1495.

26.

Rasmussen

Siersma

Pedersen

, et al. Psychosocial consequences in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST). Lung Cancer 2015; 87: 65–72.

27.

Chung

Wei

, et al. New recommendation and coverage of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: uptake has increased but is still low. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 525.

28.

Carroll

Burnett-Hartman

Joyce

, et al. Real-world clinical implementation of lung cancer screening-evaluating processes to improve screening guidelines-concordance. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35: 1143–1152.

29.

Nishi

Zhou

Kuo

, et al. Use of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in the medicare population. Mayo Clin Proc: Innovations, Qual Outcomes 2019; 3: 70–77.

30.

Nishi

SPE

Zhou

Okereke

, et al. Use of imaging and diagnostic procedures after low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Chest 2020; 157: 427–434.

31.

Tammemagi

Berg

Riley

, et al. Impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106: dju084.

32.

Jaklitsch

Jacobson

Austin

, et al. The American association for thoracic surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144: 33–38.

33.

Wood

Kazerooni

Baum

, et al. Lung cancer screening, version 3.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018; 16: 412–441.

34.

Detterbeck

Mazzone

Naidich

, et al. Screening for lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: american college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013; 143: e78S–e92S.

35.

Rzyman

Didkowska

Dziedzic

, et al. Consensus statement on a screening programme for the detection of early lung cancer in Poland. Adv Respir Med 2018; 86: 53–74.

36.

Gupta

Goodridge

Pakhale

, et al. Choosing wisely: the Canadian thoracic society's list of six things that physicians and patients should question. Can J Respir Crit Care Sleep Med 2017; 1: 54–61.

37.

Krist

Davidson

Mangione

, et al. Screening for lung cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 2021; 325: 962–970.

38.

Zhou

Fan

, et al. China National lung cancer screening guideline with low-dose computed tomography (2015 version). Thorac Cancer 2015; 6: 812–818.

39.

Field

Aberle

Altorki

, et al. The international association study lung cancer (IASLC) strategic screening advisory committee (SSAC) response to the USPSTF recommendations. J Thorac Oncol 2014; 9: 141–143.

40.

Pinsky

Miller

Kramer

, et al. Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165: 874–881.

41.

Ruparel

Quaife

Dickson

, et al. Lung screen uptake trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round. Thorax 2020; 75: 908–912.

42.

Hsieh

H-M

Shen

C-T

Chen

F-M

. Moderation effect of mammography screening among women with multiple chronic conditions. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 2303. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-962596/v1.

43.

Meguerditchian

Dauphinee

Girard

, et al.

Do physician communication skills influence screening mammography utilization?

BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 19.

44.

Viuff

Vejborg

Schwartz

, et al. Morbidity as a predictor for participation in the Danish national mammography screening program: a cross-sectional study. Clin Epidemiol 2020; 12: 509–518.

45.

Makedonov

Paszat

, et al. Organized breast screening improves reattendance compared to physician referral: a case control study. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 15.

46.

Thomsen

Rasmussen

Njor

, et al. Demographic and comorbidity predictors of adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy in the danish colorectal cancer screening program: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Clin Epidemiol 2018; 10: 1733–1742.

47.

Coronado

Nielson

Keast

, et al. The influence of multi-morbidities on colorectal cancer screening recommendations and completion. Cancer Causes Control: CCC 2021; 32: 555–565.

48.

Balata

Harvey

Barber

, et al. Spirometry performed as part of the Manchester community-based lung cancer screening programme detects a high prevalence of airflow obstruction in individuals without a prior diagnosis of COPD. Thorax 2020; 75: 655–660.

49.

Tammemagi

Katki

Hocking

, et al. Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 728–736.

50.

Marquette

Boutros

Benzaquen

, et al. Circulating tumour cells as a potential biomarker for lung cancer screening: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 709–716.

51.

Regan

Lowe

Make

, et al. Identifying smoking-related disease on lung cancer screening CT scans: increasing the value. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis 2019; 6: 233–245.

52.

Barros

Hochhegger

Altmayer

, et al. Quantitative computed tomography phenotypes, spirometric parameters, and episodes of exacerbation in heavy smokers: an analysis from South America. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0205273.

53.

Rasmussen

Køber

Pedersen

, et al. Relationship between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and subclinical coronary artery disease in long-term smokers. Eur Heart J - Cardiovasc Imaging 2013; 14: 1159–1166.

54.

Berry

Wise

. Mortality in COPD: causes, risk factors, and prevention. COPD: J Chron Obstructive Pulm Dis 2010; 7: 375–382.

55.

Hopkins

Young

Duan

, et al. Lung cancer screening and the effects of competing causes of death in the ACRIN-NLST sub-study. Respir Med 2017; 132: 279–280.

56.

Celli

Cote

Marin

, et al. The body-mass Index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity Index in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1005–1012.

57.

Mejza

Gnatiuc

Buist

, et al. Prevalence and burden of chronic bronchitis symptoms: results from the BOLD study. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700621.

58.

American Lung Assocation. COPD Prevalence-Chronic Bronchitis, https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/copd-trends-brief/copd-prevalence (2018, accessed 12/10/2021 2021).

59.

Ferré

Fuhrman

Zureik

, et al. Chronic bronchitis in the general population: influence of age, gender and socio-economic conditions. Respir Med 2012; 106: 467–471

60.

Pate

Zahran

Qin

, et al. Asthma surveillance - United States, 2006-2018. MMWR Surveill Summ 2021; 70: 1–32.

61.

Bloom

Saglani

Feary

, et al. Changing prevalence of current asthma and inhaled corticosteroid treatment in the UK: population-based cohort 2006–2016. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1802130.

62.

Zahnd

Eberth

. Lung cancer screening utilization: a behavioral risk factor surveillance system analysis. Am J Prev Med 2019; 57: 250–255

63.

Blanchon

Bréchot

J-M

Grenier

, et al. Baseline results of the depiscan study: a French randomized pilot trial of lung cancer screening comparing low dose CT scan (LDCT) and chest X-ray (CXR). Lung Cancer 2007; 58: 50–58

64.

MacRedmond

Logan

Lee

, et al. Screening for lung cancer using low dose CT scanning. Thorax 2004; 59: 37.

65.

Priola

Giaj-Levra

, et al. Clinical implications and added costs of incidental findings in an early detection study of lung cancer by using low-dose spiral computed tomography. Clin Lung Cancer 2013; 14: 139–148

66.

van de Wiel

JCM

Wang

, et al. Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch--Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1474–1482.

67.

Abad

MSC

Sanchez-Salcedo

De-Torres

, et al. Prevalence and burden of bronchiectasis in a lung cancer screening program. PLoS ONE 2020; 15: e0231204.

68.

Virani

Alonso

Benjamin

, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2020 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation 2020; 141: e139–e596.

69.

British Heart Foundation. Heart and Circulatory Disease Statistics https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/our-research/heart-statistics/heart-statistics-publications/cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2021 (2021, accessed 10/12 2021).

70.

Walter

Eng

Covinsky

. Screening mammography for frail older women: what are the burdens? J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 779–784.

71.

Handforth

Clegg

Young

, et al. The prevalence and outcomes of frailty in older cancer patients: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 1091–1101.

72.

Han

Chen

. Frailty and postoperative complications in older Chinese adults undergoing major thoracic and abdominal surgery. Clin Interv Aging 2019; 14: 947–957.

73.

Franco

Chen

Y-H

Chipidza

, et al. Use of frailty to predict survival in elderly patients with early stage non-small-cell lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. J Geriatr Oncol 2018; 9: 130–137

74.

Wang

Zhang

Shen

, et al. Prediction of chemotherapy adverse reactions and mortality in older patients with primary lung cancer through frailty index based on routine laboratory data. Clin Interv Aging 2019; 14: 1187–1197.

75.

Komici

Bencivenga

Navani

, et al. Frailty in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest2022.02.027.

76.

Lebrett

Balata

Evison

, et al. Analysis of lung cancer risk model (PLCO M2012 and LLP v2) performance in a community-based lung cancer screening programme. Thorax 2020; 75: 661–668.

77.

de Jong

Vliegenthart

, et al. Association of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and smoking status with bone density and vertebral fractures in male lung cancer screening participants. J Bone Miner Res 2014; 29: 2224–2229.

78.

Wilson

Weissfeld

Balkan

, et al. Association of radiographic emphysema and airflow obstruction with lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 178: 738–744.

79.

Aberle

Adams

Berg

, et al. Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial. NCI: J National Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 1771–1779.

80.

Park

Jang

Park

, et al. Burden of male hardcore smokers and its characteristics among those eligible for lung cancer screening. BMC Public Health 2020; 20: 151.

81.

Goffin

Pond

Puksa

, et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevalence and prediction in a high-risk lung cancer screening population. BMC Pulm Med 2020; 20: 300.

82.

Zhu

Yip

Shemesh

, et al. Combined aortic valve and coronary artery calcifications in lung cancer screening as predictors of death from cardiovascular disease. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 6847–6857.

83.

Balkan

Bulut

Fuhrman

, et al. COPD Phenotypes in a lung cancer screening population. Clin Respir J 2016; 10: 48–53.

84.

Jacobs

Gondrie

van der Graaf

, et al. Coronary artery calcium can predict all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events on low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198: 505–511.

85.

Leigh

McEvoy

Sandfort

, et al. Coronary artery calcium scores for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk stratification in smokers: MESA. JACC: Cardiovasc Imaging 2017; 69: 1557.

86.

Henschke

Yip

Boffetta

, et al. CT Screening for lung cancer: importance of emphysema for never smokers and smokers. Lung Cancer 2015; 88: 42–47.

87.

Sekine

Fujisawa

Suzuki

, et al. Detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in community-based annual lung cancer screening: chiba chronic obstructive pulmonary disease lung cancer screening study group. Respirology 2014; 19: 98–104.

88.

Welch

Dement

Cranford

, et al. Early detection of lung cancer in a population at high risk due to occupation and smoking. Occup Environ Med 2019; 76: 137–142.

89.

Swensen

Karabekmez

, et al. Effect of emphysema on lung cancer risk in smokers: a computed tomography-based assessment. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011; 4: 43–50.

90.

Wilshire

Fuller

Gilbert

, et al. Electronic medical record inaccuracies: multicenter analysis of challenges with modified lung cancer screening criteria. Can Respir J 2020; 2020: 7142568.

91.

Omori

Nakashima

Otsuka

, et al. Emphysema detected by lung cancer screening with low-dose spiral CT: prevalence, and correlation with smoking habits and pulmonary function in Japanese male subjects. Respirology 2006; 11: 205–210.

92.

Guo

Chen

Shen

, et al. Evaluation of a low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening program in henan, China. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e2019039.

93.

Ruparel

Quaife

Dickson

, et al. Evaluation of cardiovascular risk in a lung cancer screening cohort. Thorax 2019; 74: 1140–1146.

94.

Salvatore

Henschke

Yip

, et al. JOURNAL CLUB: evidence of interstitial lung disease on low-dose chest CT images: prevalence, patterns, and progression. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206: 487–494.

95.

Anna

Zsuzsanna

Diana

, et al. First experiences with HUNCHEST - low-dose CT lung cancer screening programme. [Hungarian]. Orv Hetil 2018; 159: 1741–1746.

96.

Bons

Sedghi Gamechi

Thijssen

CGE

, et al. Growth of the thoracic aorta in the smoking population: the Danish lung cancer screening trial. Int J Cardiol 2020; 299: 276–281.

97.

Travier

Martin-Sanchez

, et al. Identifying high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening: going beyond NLST criteria. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0195441.

98.

Sanchez-Salcedo

Wilson

de-Torres

, et al. Improving selection criteria for lung cancer screening. The potential role of emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 191: 924–931.

99.

Sim

Ham

Choi

, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of lung function associated with emphysema in healthy smokers. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul) 2010; 69: 177–183.

100.

Ahmed

Verma

Barreto

, et al. Low-dose lung cancer screening at an academic medical center: initial experience and dose reduction strategies. Acad Radiol 2018; 25: 1025–1030.

101.

Infante

Lutman

Cavuto

, et al. Lung cancer screening with spiral CT: baseline results of the randomized DANTE trial. Lung Cancer 2008; 59: 355–363.

102.

Raju

Khawaja

Han

, et al. Lung cancer screening: characteristics of nonparticipants and potential screening barriers. Clin Lung Cancer 2020; 21: e329–e336.

103.

Sanchez-Salcedo

Berto

de-Torres

, et al. Lung cancer screening: fourteen year experience of the Pamplona early detection program (P-IELCAP). Arch Bronconeumol 2015; 51: 169–176.

104.

Ostrowski

Marczyk

Dziedzic

, et al. Lung cancer survival and comorbidities in lung cancer screening participants of the gdansk screening cohort. Eur J Public Health 2019; 29: 1114–1117.

105.

Calabro

Randi

La Vecchia

, et al. Lung function predicts lung cancer risk in smokers: a tool for targeting screening programmes. Eur Respir J 2010; 35: 146–151.

106.

Lewis

Samuels

Denton

, et al. National lung cancer screening utilization trends in the veterans health administration. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2020; 4: pkaa053.

107.

Aggarwal

Lam

ACL

McGregor

, et al. Outcomes of long-term interval rescreening with low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer in different risk cohorts. J Thorac Oncol 2019; 14: 1003–1011.

108.

Tammemagi

Schmidt

Martel

, et al. Participant selection for lung cancer screening by risk modelling (the pan-Canadian early detection of lung cancer [PanCan] study): a single-arm, prospective study. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 1523–1531.

109.

Guichet

Liu

Desai

, et al. Preliminary results of lung cancer screening in a socioeconomically disadvantaged population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 210: 489–496.

110.

Wang

Takashima

Wang

, et al. Prevalence of emphysema in individuals who underwent screening CT for lung cancer in nagano prefecture of Japan. Respiration 2001; 68: 352–356.

111.

Ruparel

Quaife

Dickson

, et al. Prevalence, symptom burden and under-diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a lung cancer screening cohort. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2020; 17(7): 869–878.

112.

Hopkins

Duan

Chiles

, et al. Reduced expiratory flow rate among heavy smokers increases lung cancer risk. Results from the national lung screening trial-American college of radiology imaging network cohort. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14: 392–402.

113.

Sverzellati

Cademartiri

Bravi

, et al. Relationship and prognostic value of modified coronary artery calcium score, FEV1, and emphysema in lung cancer screening population: the MILD trial. Radiology 2012; 262: 460–467.

114.

Wille

Dirksen

Ashraf

, et al. Results of the randomized danish lung cancer screening trial with focus on high-risk profiling. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193: 542–551.

115.

Perez-Warnisher

Cabezas

Troncoso

, et al. Sleep disordered breathing and nocturnal hypoxemia are very prevalent in a lung cancer screening population and may condition lung cancer screening findings: results of the prospective sleep apnea in lung cancer screening (SAILS) study. Sleep Med 2019; 54: 181–186.

116.

Sekine

Yanagibori

Suzuki

, et al. Surveillance of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in high-risk individuals by using regional lung cancer mass screening. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2014; 9: 647–656.

117.

Balata

Blandin Knight

Barber

, et al. Targeted lung cancer screening selects individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Lung Cancer 2018; 124: 148–153.

118.

Mets

Smit

Mohamed Hoesein

, et al. Visual versus automated evaluation of chest computed tomography for the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PLoS One 2012; 7: e42227.

119.

Adamek

Szablowska-Siwik

Peled

, et al. Low-dose computed-tomography lung cancer screening: the first European recommendations from the European society of radiology and European respiratory society. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2015; 125: 607–609.

120.

Mazzone

Silvestri

Patel

, et al. Screening for lung cancer: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2018; 153: 954–985.

121.

Veronesi

Baldwin

Henschke

, et al. Recommendations for implementing lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in Europe. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12: 1672.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

1.44 MB

0.03 MB