María Del Pilar Fernández Montejo, Zaigham Saghir, Uffe Bødtger, Randi Jepsen, Elsebeth Lynge, Søren Lophaven
{"title":"确定丹麦肺癌筛查计划的目标人群。","authors":"María Del Pilar Fernández Montejo, Zaigham Saghir, Uffe Bødtger, Randi Jepsen, Elsebeth Lynge, Søren Lophaven","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We assessed the impact of recruitment criteria on lung cancer detection in a future Danish screening programme with low-dose CT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We combined data from two Danish population-based health examination surveys with eligibility criteria from seven randomised controlled trials on lung cancer screening. Incident lung cancers were identified by linkage with the National Pathology Data Bank (Patobank). For an average of 4.4 years of follow-up, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, efficient frontier and number needed to screen (NNS) for lung cancer detection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When applying the different eligibility criteria to the 48 171 persons invited to the two surveys, the number of lung cancer cases identified in the target groups varied from 46 to 68. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria had the highest sensitivity of 62.6% (95% CI 52.7 to 71.8) and the Dutch-Belgian NEderlands-Leuvens Screening ONderzoek (NELSON) criteria had the highest specificity 81.6% (95% CI 81.0 to 82.1). Sensitivity was higher for men than for women (NLST criteria 71.7% (95% CI 57.7 to 83.2) and 53.7% (95% CI 39.6 to 67.4), respectively). The NLST criteria identified the target population obtaining the lowest NNS with 46.3. The application of the NLST criteria showed that the higher the sensitivity, the lower the number of false-negative cases and, thus, the lower the NNS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the impact of the definition of the at-risk population on lung cancer screening efficacy. We found lower sensitivity among women regardless of screening criteria used. This should be carefully addressed in a possible screening programme.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752008/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying the population to be targeted in a lung cancer screening programme in Denmark.\",\"authors\":\"María Del Pilar Fernández Montejo, Zaigham Saghir, Uffe Bødtger, Randi Jepsen, Elsebeth Lynge, Søren Lophaven\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We assessed the impact of recruitment criteria on lung cancer detection in a future Danish screening programme with low-dose CT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We combined data from two Danish population-based health examination surveys with eligibility criteria from seven randomised controlled trials on lung cancer screening. Incident lung cancers were identified by linkage with the National Pathology Data Bank (Patobank). For an average of 4.4 years of follow-up, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, efficient frontier and number needed to screen (NNS) for lung cancer detection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When applying the different eligibility criteria to the 48 171 persons invited to the two surveys, the number of lung cancer cases identified in the target groups varied from 46 to 68. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria had the highest sensitivity of 62.6% (95% CI 52.7 to 71.8) and the Dutch-Belgian NEderlands-Leuvens Screening ONderzoek (NELSON) criteria had the highest specificity 81.6% (95% CI 81.0 to 82.1). Sensitivity was higher for men than for women (NLST criteria 71.7% (95% CI 57.7 to 83.2) and 53.7% (95% CI 39.6 to 67.4), respectively). The NLST criteria identified the target population obtaining the lowest NNS with 46.3. The application of the NLST criteria showed that the higher the sensitivity, the lower the number of false-negative cases and, thus, the lower the NNS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the impact of the definition of the at-risk population on lung cancer screening efficacy. We found lower sensitivity among women regardless of screening criteria used. This should be carefully addressed in a possible screening programme.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752008/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002499\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002499","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在未来的丹麦低剂量CT筛查项目中,我们评估了招募标准对肺癌检测的影响。方法:我们将两项丹麦人群健康检查调查的数据与七项肺癌筛查随机对照试验的资格标准相结合。通过与国家病理数据库(Patobank)的联系来确定肺癌事件。在平均4.4年的随访中,我们计算了肺癌检测的敏感性、特异性、有效前沿和筛查所需数量(NNS)。结果:当将不同的资格标准应用于受邀参加两项调查的48171人时,目标群体中确定的肺癌病例数量从46到68不等。国家肺筛查试验(NLST)标准的灵敏度最高,为62.6% (95% CI 52.7至71.8),荷兰-比利时-荷兰- leuvens筛查ONderzoek (NELSON)标准的特异性最高,为81.6% (95% CI 81.0至82.1)。男性的敏感性高于女性(NLST标准分别为71.7% (95% CI 57.7 ~ 83.2)和53.7% (95% CI 39.6 ~ 67.4))。NLST标准确定目标人群的NNS最低,为46.3。NLST标准的应用表明,灵敏度越高,假阴性病例的数量越少,因此NNS越低。结论:本研究强调了高危人群的定义对肺癌筛查效果的影响。我们发现,无论使用何种筛查标准,女性的敏感性都较低。在可能的筛查方案中应仔细处理这一问题。
Identifying the population to be targeted in a lung cancer screening programme in Denmark.
Introduction: We assessed the impact of recruitment criteria on lung cancer detection in a future Danish screening programme with low-dose CT.
Methods: We combined data from two Danish population-based health examination surveys with eligibility criteria from seven randomised controlled trials on lung cancer screening. Incident lung cancers were identified by linkage with the National Pathology Data Bank (Patobank). For an average of 4.4 years of follow-up, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, efficient frontier and number needed to screen (NNS) for lung cancer detection.
Results: When applying the different eligibility criteria to the 48 171 persons invited to the two surveys, the number of lung cancer cases identified in the target groups varied from 46 to 68. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria had the highest sensitivity of 62.6% (95% CI 52.7 to 71.8) and the Dutch-Belgian NEderlands-Leuvens Screening ONderzoek (NELSON) criteria had the highest specificity 81.6% (95% CI 81.0 to 82.1). Sensitivity was higher for men than for women (NLST criteria 71.7% (95% CI 57.7 to 83.2) and 53.7% (95% CI 39.6 to 67.4), respectively). The NLST criteria identified the target population obtaining the lowest NNS with 46.3. The application of the NLST criteria showed that the higher the sensitivity, the lower the number of false-negative cases and, thus, the lower the NNS.
Conclusions: This study highlights the impact of the definition of the at-risk population on lung cancer screening efficacy. We found lower sensitivity among women regardless of screening criteria used. This should be carefully addressed in a possible screening programme.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.