Transcript generated from video captions.
Hello. I’m Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I’d like to discuss over the next several minutes a very interesting modeling study that was recently reported in JAMA. The paper is entitled, “Lung Cancer Deaths Prevented and Life-Years Gained From Lung Cancer Screening.”
Very strong evidence-based data have demonstrated the utility of lung cancer screening in individuals with well-defined risk due to past and current smoking behavior. The specific characteristics have been well laid out in the literature, and really advertised to the public.
- Lung cancer screening benefits strongest in well-defined smoking-risk populations.
- US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening eligible high-risk adults.
- 2024 screening uptake only ~20%-25%; some regions <10%.
- 100% eligibility adherence modeled to triple deaths prevented + life-years gained.
- Full uptake projected: 62,110 deaths prevented; 872,270 life-years gained/5 years.
Which interventions increase lung screening uptake?
How does screening adherence vary by US region?
What barriers limit primary care lung screening referrals?
The lung cancer screening strategy has been recommended in these well-defined populations, in fact, by the United States Preventive Service Task Force. Despite these facts, evidence very strongly suggests that, overall, only about 1 in 5, so 20% or maybe 25% of eligible individuals based upon risk factors were screened in 2024,and in certain regions of the country, that number was actually less than 10%.
The individuals in this report conducted a modeling study, addressing the question of what if we assumed that we could get the message to the public, also perhaps to primary care doctors and others involved in care? What would be the impact if this message got through and essentially 100% of those eligible in the United States for screening actually participated in these well-defined programs? What if we were able to encourage people to do this? What would be the impact?
Recognizing the limitations of any modeling exercise, this analysis revealed the following. If essentially 100% of eligible individuals were screened, the number of deaths prevented and life-years gained would increase threefold compared to the current situation. Overall, 62,110 lung cancer deaths would be prevented over 5 years, with a gain of 872,270 life-years total.
This is a remarkable achievement when you consider death, morbidity, mortality, pain, and suffering associated with these lung cancer events. All of this could occur if an established screening modality was more widely employed.
This is an important message, I think, as a community, physicians, public health officials, members of society in general, and family members with individuals who are potentially at risk. We need to figure out a better way of communicating the benefits of lung cancer screening.
I thank you for your attention.
Transcript generated from video captions.
Hello. I’m Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I’d like to discuss over the next several minutes a very interesting modeling study that was recently reported in JAMA. The paper is entitled, “Lung Cancer Deaths Prevented and Life-Years Gained From Lung Cancer Screening.”
Very strong evidence-based data have demonstrated the utility of lung cancer screening in individuals with well-defined risk due to past and current smoking behavior. The specific characteristics have been well laid out in the literature, and really advertised to the public.
The lung cancer screening strategy has been recommended in these well-defined populations, in fact, by the United States Preventive Service Task Force. Despite these facts, evidence very strongly suggests that, overall, only about 1 in 5, so 20% or maybe 25% of eligible individuals based upon risk factors were screened in 2024,and in certain regions of the country, that number was actually less than 10%.
The individuals in this report conducted a modeling study, addressing the question of what if we assumed that we could get the message to the public, also perhaps to primary care doctors and others involved in care? What would be the impact if this message got through and essentially 100% of those eligible in the United States for screening actually participated in these well-defined programs? What if we were able to encourage people to do this? What would be the impact?
Recognizing the limitations of any modeling exercise, this analysis revealed the following. If essentially 100% of eligible individuals were screened, the number of deaths prevented and life-years gained would increase threefold compared to the current situation. Overall, 62,110 lung cancer deaths would be prevented over 5 years, with a gain of 872,270 life-years total.
This is a remarkable achievement when you consider death, morbidity, mortality, pain, and suffering associated with these lung cancer events. All of this could occur if an established screening modality was more widely employed.
This is an important message, I think, as a community, physicians, public health officials, members of society in general, and family members with individuals who are potentially at risk. We need to figure out a better way of communicating the benefits of lung cancer screening.
I thank you for your attention.