Lung cancer screening recommendation finalized

Lung cancer screening recommendation finalized

30/12/2013

The recommendation includes annual low-dose Computed Tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for high-risk individuals.

The final grade B recommendation for adults ages 55 through 79 with a 30 pack-year history of smoking or who have quit in the past 15 years came from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The only changes based on comments received during the public comment period were that smoking cessation was more prominently emphasized as a component of screening programs and the description of the appropriate patient population was moved to the top of the document.

So explained task force co-vice chair Michael L. LeFevre, MD, MSPH, of the University of Missouri in Columbia.

"It's very clear that the best way to prevent lung cancer deaths is to quit smoking," he told MedPage Today. "So we have that emphasized much more significantly, particularly in the section called clinical considerations, to make sure people don't think this is an excuse to keep smoking."

The draft had included in the clinical considerations section a recommendation against screening individuals with significant comorbidity, especially those nearing the age cutoff of 80.

The final recommendation, published online Monday in Annals of Internal Medicine, moved that into the initial description of the screening recommendation and repeated it again in the main body of the document.

"Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery," it said.

An accompanying editorial called the recommendations important, but cautioned that they left out many of the practical aspects of implementing a lung cancer screening program, such as what to do with people who want to be screened but don't meet the criteria.

"These people have reasons for their concerns; turning them away because they do not meet the criteria does not provide them the reassurance they seek," wrote Frank C. Detterbeck, MD, of Yale University, and Michael Unger, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

Other issues are how to involve primary care physicians who may do the bulk of referring and determining who, when, and how to treat screen-detected cancer, they pointed out.

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning [of screening for lung cancer]," Detterbeck and Unger wrote, riffing on Winston Churchill.

These screening programs have rapidly rolled out across the country, and the USPSTF recommendation should give centers a further boost by leading to reimbursement, LeFevre predicted.

The Affordable Care Act mandates that private insurers cover without copay or deductible services the task force grants an "A" or a "B" recommendation.

However, Medicare won't be required to cover such services, Peter B. Bach, MD, MAPP, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, noted in a second editorial.

He criticized the lack of distinction of truly high-risk individuals within the screened population.

Overall, screening had "only moderate certainty of a moderate net benefit," but the number needed to screen to prevent a lung cancer death varied across the screened population, from 161 in the highest risk to 5,276 in the lowest risk participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which formed the main basis for the recommendations.

"Perhaps the high-risk group should have qualified for an 'A'; perhaps the latter should get only a 'C,' a service that should be only selectively offered," Bach suggested.

He also criticized the group's extrapolation beyond the trial data.

"On the basis of models, the Task Force chose to lengthen the duration of screening to a maximum of 26 years and increase the upper age of eligibility for screening to 80 years, even though NLST participants were screened for only 3 years and were ineligible to enroll if they were older than 74 years (only 8.8% of participants were ages 70 years or older at enrollment)," he pointed out.

"This may be appropriate, but here, too, the grading of this extrapolation should match the low level of evidence supporting it," Bach stated.

 

Source: MedPage Today: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonology/LungCancer/43616

Login to your account

Did you forget your password?