Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 3.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 4;171(5):384–386. doi: 10.7326/M18-3617

Contemporary Implications of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Risk-Based Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the United States

Rebecca Landy 1, Li C Cheung 2, Christine D Berg 3, Anil K Chaturvedi 4, Hilary A Robbins 5, Hormuzd A Katki 6
PMCID: PMC6822170  NIHMSID: NIHMS1056403  PMID: 31158854

Background:

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guidelines recommend annual computed tomography (CT) screening for current or former smokers (“ever-smokers”) aged 55 to 80 years with 30 or more pack-years of smoking and no more than 15 years since quitting (1). These criteria aim to improve the balance of benefits and harms of CT screening. However, using risk models to select ever-smokers for screening may be more effective and efficient (2). The USPSTF is considering recommending use of externally validated models (3) for screening. Although lung cancer risk models have been validated (4), their risk thresholds are based on historical data. Given large reductions in smoking over time, the current performance of these thresholds is unclear.

Three risk thresholds have been proposed to screen no more ever-smokers than would be screened according to the USPSTF guidelines yet potentially save more lives. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (version 1.2019) recommend screening ever-smokers with 6-year lung cancer risk of 1.3% or higher according to the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012 (PLCOM2012) (5). This threshold (“≥1.3%-NCCN”) selects the same proportion of ever-smokers as application of the USPSTF criteria to the PLCO (5). The same authors (5) also proposed 6-year lung cancer risk of 1.51% or higher according to the PLCOM2012 (“≥1.51%-PLCOM2012”) as being more efficient than the USPSTF criteria because this method limits screening to at least the 65th percentile of risk in PLCO ever-smokers and would screen fewer PLCO participants than the USPSTF criteria. Another proposal found that 5-year risk for lung cancer death of at least 1.2% according to the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT) (“≥1.2%-LCDRAT”) (2) would allow screening of the same number of ever-smokers as application of the USPSTF guidelines to the U.S.-representative 2010-2012 NHIS (National Health Interview Survey) yet potentially save more lives.

Objective:

To evaluate these proposed risk-based thresholds for screening eligibility versus USPSTF guidelines on the number of ever-smokers selected, effectiveness (number of lung cancer deaths prevented), efficiency (number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 death), and the number of false positive screening results per prevented death (FPPDs).

Methods and Findings:

We used the 2005 and 2015 NHIS to estimate the number of ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years who were eligible for lung cancer screening according to the ≥1.3%-NCCN, ≥1.51%-PLCOM2012, and ≥1.2%-LCDRAT risk thresholds. For each threshold, we used empirical modeling methods (2) to estimate screening effectiveness, screening efficiency, and FPPDs for a screening program akin to the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) (3 annual CT lung screenings and 5 years of follow-up). We used the survey package in R, version 3.5.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), for statistical analysis. Missing data were handled via multiple imputation (4).

We found that, in 2015, 8.0 million U.S. ever-smokers were eligible for screening according to the USPSTF guidelines. However, an additional 4.6 million (increase, 57% [95% CI, 49% to 64%]), 3.3 million (increase, 41% [CI, 34% to 47%]), and 1.0 million (increase, 12% [CI, 5% to 20%]) were eligible using the ≥1.3%-NCCN, ≥1.51%-PLCOM2012, and >1.2%-LCDRAT thresholds, respectively (Table).

Table.

Projected Performance of Proposed Risk Thresholds for Selection of Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening Using NHIS 2015 Data*

Criteria Risk Calculator U.S. Ever-Smokers Aged 50-80 y
Screening Efficiency
Screening Harms
Screening Effectiveness
Ever-Smokers Selected (Millions), n (%) Increase vs. USPSTF Guidelines (95% CI), % NNS to Prevent 1 Death Improvement vs. USPSTF Guidelines (95% CI), % False-Positive Results per Prevented Death, n Improvement vs. USPSTF Guidelines (95% CI), % Lung Cancer Deaths Prevented, n Increase vs. USPSTF Guidelines (95% CI), %
USPSTF guidelines§ NA   8.0 (18.1) NA 194 NA 133 NA 41 298 NA

NCCN guidelines (1.3% 6-y lung cancer risk) PLCOM2012 12.6 (28.4) 57 (49 to 64) 222 −14 (−20 to −9) 150 −13 (−18 to −8) 56 528 37 (32 to 41)
Other proposed thresholds

 1.51% 6-y lung cancer risk** PLCOM2012 11.3 (25.5) 41 (34 to 47) 207 −7 (−12 to −1) 141 −6 (−12 to −1) 54 456 32 (28 to 36)

 1.2% 5-y lung cancer death risk†† LCDRAT‡‡   9.0 (20.4) 12 (5 to 20) 168 14 (8 to 19) 119 10 (5 to 15) 53 732 30 (25 to 35)
Thresholds required to screen as many ever-smokers as USPSTF guidelines in 2015 (8.0 million)

 2.19% 6-y lung cancer risk PLCOM2012   8.0 (18.1) 0 (−6 to 6) 169 13 (7 to 19) 119 10 (5 to 15) 47 401 14(11 to 19)

 1.33% 5-y lung cancer death risk LCDRAT‡‡   8.0 (18.1) −1 (−7 to 6) 156 20 (14 to 25) 112 15 (10 to 21) 51 019 24 (19 to 28)

CT = computed tomography; LCDRAT = Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool; NA = not applicable; NCCN = National Comprehensive Cancer Network; NHIS = National Health Interview Survey; NNS = number needed to screen; PLCOM2012 = Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012; USPSTF = U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

*

Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data (1.8% for race, 0.4% for education, 2.9% for body mass index, 0.4% for number of years since quitting, 7.3% for number of cigarettes smoked per day, 0.3% for number of years of smoking, 0.2% for presence of emphysema, and 12.1% for family history of lung cancer).

We estimate there would be 202 442 lung cancer deaths without screening. The number prevented with each risk threshold/model combination was estimated using the LCDRAT.

Obtained using the delta method.

§

Guidelines recommend annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 55-80 y with a 30-pack-year smoking history and ≥15 y since quitting.

1.34% 6-y lung cancer risk according to the PLCOM2012 was chosen to select the same proportion of ever-smokers as were eligible according to the USPSTF guidelines in the PLCO (1993-2001) cohort (38%) (4). The NCCN criterion is 1.3% (not 1.34%) 6-y lung cancer risk according to the PLCOM2012.

Reference 5.

**

Chosen to select 35% of ever-smokers at highest risk in the PLCO (1993-2001) cohort (4).

††

Selects the same number of ever-smokers who were eligible according to the USPSTF guidelines in the 2010-2012 NHIS (9.0 million).

‡‡

Reference 2.

The increases are surprising because the ≥1.3%-NCCN threshold selected the same proportion (38%) of ever-smokers as the USPSTF guidelines in the PLCO (5), and the ≥1.51%-PLCOM2012 threshold selected an even smaller proportion (35%). However, when applied to the 2015 NHIS, the USPSTF guidelines selected a smaller proportion of ever-smokers (18%) than either the ≥1.3%-NCCN (28%) or the ≥1.51%-PLCOM2012 (25%) threshold. These decreases are due to changing demographic characteristics and smoking histories since PLCO enrollment (1993 to 2001). Thus, the ≥1.3%-NCCN and ≥1.51%-PLCOM2012 thresholds also chose substantially more ever-smokers (12.7 million and 11.2 million, respectively) than the USPSTF guidelines (8.7 million) in 2005. Even the ≥1.2%-LCDRAT threshold selected 1.0 million more ever-smokers in 2015 despite using data from 2010 to 2012 to select the threshold.

For the USPSTF guidelines, we estimated screening efficiency as an NNS of 194 and 133 FPPDs (Table). Compared with the USPSTF guidelines, estimated efficiency and FPPDs might be worse for the ≥1.3%-NCCN and ≥1.51%-PLCOM2012 thresholds but might be improved for the ≥1.2%-LCDRAT threshold (Table). All 3 thresholds might prevent more deaths than the USPSTF guidelines (Table).

Recalibrating the risk thresholds to select 8.0 million ever-smokers in 2015 requires higher thresholds (≥2.19% for the PLCOM2012 or ≥1.33% for the LCDRAT). At these thresholds, efficiency and FPPDs might be improved versus the USPSTF guidelines (Table). Although reducing the number of eligible ever-smokers also reduced the number of lung cancer deaths that could be prevented, they still exceeded USPSTF effectiveness (Table).

Discussion:

Compared with the USPSTF guidelines, the ≥1.3%-NCCN and ≥1.51%-PLCOM2012 thresholds would screen millions more U.S. ever-smokers, possibly at lower efficiency and with more FPPDs. This is due to large reductions in smoking over time. These thresholds were based on selection of a set proportion of ever-smokers from an old data set (PLCO [1993 to 2001]), when a much larger proportion of ever-smokers were eligible for screening according to the USPSTF guidelines. Even the ≥1.2%-LCDRAT threshold chose 1 million more ever-smokers than the USPSTF guidelines, despite the threshold being selected using recent (2010 to 2012) data. Risk thresholds should be reevaluated regularly as population characteristics change to ensure they maximize the number of deaths prevented with acceptable efficiency and minimal harms.

Acknowledgment:

The authors thank the reviewers, whose comments greatly improved the manuscript.

Financial Support: By the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Note: The Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool was previously proposed in a manuscript coauthored by Drs. Cheung, Berg, Chaturvedi, and Katki.

Publisher's Disclaimer: Disclaimer: The National Institutes of Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. The authors are solely responsible for the views expressed in this article, which do not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which the authors are affiliated.

Reproducible Research Statement: Study protocol: Not available. Statistical code and data set: Available from Dr. Landy (rebecca.landy@nih.gov).

Contributor Information

Rebecca Landy, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland.

Li C. Cheung, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland.

Christine D. Berg, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland.

Anil K. Chaturvedi, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland.

Hilary A. Robbins, International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon, France.

Hormuzd A. Katki, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland.

References

  • 1.Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:330–8. doi: 10.7326/M13-2771 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Katki HA, Kovalchik, Berg, Cheung, Chaturvedi. Development and validation of risk models to select ever-smokers for CT lung cancer screening. JAMA. 2016;315:2300–11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.6255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Research Plan: Lung Cancer: Screening. Rockville, MD: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; 2018. Accessed at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-research-plan/lung-cancer-screening1 On 25 February 2019.
  • 4.Katki HA, Kovalchik SA, Petito LC, Cheung LC, Jacobs E, Jemal A, et al. Implications of nine risk prediction models for selecting ever-smokers for computed tomography lung cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169: 10–9. doi: 10.7326/M17-2701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tammemagi MC, Church TR, Hocking WG, Silvestri GA, Kvale PA, Riley TL, et al. Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001764. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES