Suppr超能文献

美国人群中肺癌筛查指南的差异。

Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.

机构信息

Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

出版信息

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Nov 1;112(11):1136-1142. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa013.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guidelines are based on smoking history and age (55-80 years). These guidelines may miss those at higher risk, even at lower exposures of smoking or younger ages, because of other risk factors such as race, family history, or comorbidity. In this study, we characterized the demographic and clinical profiles of those selected by risk-based screening criteria but were missed by USPSTF guidelines in younger (50-54 years) and older (71-80 years) age groups.

METHODS

We used data from the National Health Interview Survey, the CISNET Smoking History Generator, and results of logistic prediction models to simulate lifetime lung cancer risk-factor data for 100 000 individuals in the 1950-1960 birth cohorts. We calculated age-specific 6-year lung cancer risk for each individual from ages 50 to 90 years using the PLCOm2012 model and evaluated age-specific screening eligibility by USPSTF guidelines and by risk-based criteria (varying thresholds between 1.3% and 2.5%).

RESULTS

In the 1950 birth cohort, 5.4% would have been ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria in their younger ages but eligible based on risk-based criteria. Similarly, 10.4% of the cohort would be ineligible for screening by USPSTF in older ages. Notably, high proportions of blacks were ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria at younger (15.6%) and older (14.2%) ages, which were statistically significantly greater than those of whites (4.8% and 10.8%, respectively; P < .001). Similar results were observed with other risk thresholds and for the 1960 cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Further consideration is needed to incorporate comprehensive risk factors, including race and ethnicity, into lung cancer screening to reduce potential racial disparities.

摘要

背景

当前美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)的肺癌筛查指南基于吸烟史和年龄(55-80 岁)。这些指南可能会遗漏那些风险更高的人群,即使他们的吸烟量较低或年龄较小,因为存在其他风险因素,如种族、家族史或合并症。在这项研究中,我们描述了按风险因素筛选标准选择但因 USPSTF 指南而在较年轻(50-54 岁)和较年长(71-80 岁)年龄组中被遗漏的人群的人口统计学和临床特征。

方法

我们使用了来自全国健康访谈调查、CISNET 吸烟史生成器以及逻辑预测模型的结果的数据,模拟了 1950-1960 年出生队列中 100000 个人的终生肺癌风险因素数据。我们使用 PLCOm2012 模型,根据 USPSTF 指南和风险因素标准(阈值在 1.3%-2.5%之间变化)计算了每个个体从 50 岁到 90 岁的年龄特异性 6 年肺癌风险。

结果

在 1950 年出生队列中,有 5.4%的人按照 USPSTF 标准,在其较年轻时没有资格进行筛查,但按照风险因素标准有资格进行筛查。同样,该队列中有 10.4%的人按照 USPSTF 标准,在较年长时没有资格进行筛查。值得注意的是,在较年轻(15.6%)和较年长(14.2%)时,黑人不符合 USPSTF 筛查标准的比例明显高于白人(分别为 4.8%和 10.8%;P<.001),这在统计学上具有显著差异。对于其他风险阈值和 1960 年出生队列,也观察到了类似的结果。

结论

需要进一步考虑将包括种族和族裔在内的综合风险因素纳入肺癌筛查,以减少潜在的种族差异。

相似文献

1
Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Nov 1;112(11):1136-1142. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa013.
2
Addressing Sex Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: USPSTF vs PLCOm2012 Criteria.
Chest. 2022 Jan;161(1):248-256. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.066. Epub 2021 Jul 9.
3
Persistent race- and sex-based disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Jul;168(1):248-260.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.10.025. Epub 2023 Oct 18.
4
Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US.
JAMA Oncol. 2023 Dec 1;9(12):1640-1648. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.4447.
7
Revisiting the lung cancer screening eligibility criteria to promote equity for Black individuals.
Lung Cancer. 2024 May;191:107539. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2024.107539. Epub 2024 Mar 20.

引用本文的文献

2
Lung Cancer Screening in the Incarcerated Population Through a Community Imaging Partnership.
J Correct Health Care. 2025 Feb;31(1):62-69. doi: 10.1089/jchc.24.06.0046. Epub 2025 Jan 3.
3
The potential high-risk population for lung cancer screening: determination of initial screening age and heterogeneity in histology and sex.
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2024 Nov 30;13(11):2880-2889. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-24-475. Epub 2024 Nov 13.
4
Targeted lung cancer screening in the age of immunotherapies and targeted therapies - an economic evaluation for Australia.
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2024 Nov 25;53:101241. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101241. eCollection 2024 Dec.
5
University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2024 Jun 26;2024(64):62-69. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgae011.
8
Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study.
JTO Clin Res Rep. 2023 Dec 26;5(2):100629. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2023.100629. eCollection 2024 Feb.
9
Lung Cancer Screening in Brazil Comparing the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF Guidelines.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Dec 1;6(12):e2346994. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46994.

本文引用的文献

1
A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 May 1;112(5):466-479. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz164.
2
Evaluation of USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Among African American Adult Smokers.
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 1;5(9):1318-1324. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1402.
4
Racial disparities in eligibility for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening among older adults with a history of smoking.
Cancer Causes Control. 2019 Mar;30(3):235-240. doi: 10.1007/s10552-018-1092-2. Epub 2018 Oct 30.
5
Smoking and Lung Cancer Mortality in the United States From 2015 to 2065: A Comparative Modeling Approach.
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Nov 20;169(10):684-693. doi: 10.7326/M18-1250. Epub 2018 Oct 9.
6
Potential Racial Disparities Using Current Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines.
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019 Feb;6(1):22-26. doi: 10.1007/s40615-018-0492-z. Epub 2018 May 4.
8
Evaluating the impact of varied compliance to lung cancer screening recommendations using a microsimulation model.
Cancer Causes Control. 2017 Sep;28(9):947-958. doi: 10.1007/s10552-017-0907-x. Epub 2017 Jul 12.
9
Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography in the United States-2010 to 2015.
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;3(9):1278-1281. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6416.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验