Corresponding Author: Alex H. Krist, MD, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth University, 830 E Main St, One Capitol Square, Sixth Floor, Richmond, VA 23219 (chair@uspstf.net).
Accepted for Publication: January 27, 2021.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Alex H. Krist, MD, MPH; Karina W. Davidson, PhD, MASc; Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH; Michael J. Barry, MD; Michael Cabana, MD, MA, MPH; Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD; Esa M. Davis, MD, MPH; Katrina E. Donahue, MD, MPH; Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH; Martha Kubik, PhD, RN; C. Seth Landefeld, MD; Li Li, MD, PhD, MPH; Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH; Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS; Lori Pbert, PhD; Michael Silverstein, MD, MPH; James Stevermer, MD, MSPH; Chien-Wen Tseng, MD, MPH, MSEE; John B. Wong, MD.
Affiliations of The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia (Krist); Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (Krist); Feinstein Institute for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York (Davidson); University of California, Los Angeles (Mangione); Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Barry); University of California, San Francisco (Cabana); Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (Caughey); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (Davis); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Donahue); Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Doubeni); George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia (Kubik); University of Alabama at Birmingham (Landefeld); University of Virginia, Charlottesville (Li); New York University, New York (Ogedegbe); Stanford University, Stanford, California (Owens); University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Pbert); Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts (Silverstein); University of Missouri, Columbia (Stevermer); University of Hawaii, Honolulu (Tseng); Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii (Tseng); Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (Wong).
Author Contributions: Dr Krist had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The USPSTF members contributed equally to the recommendation statement.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Authors followed the policy regarding conflicts of interest described at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/conflict-of-interest-disclosures. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. Dr Barry reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise.
Funding/Support: The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The US Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) support the operations of the USPSTF.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: AHRQ staff assisted in the following: development and review of the research plan, commission of the systematic evidence review from an evidence-based practice center, coordination of expert review and public comment of the draft evidence report and draft recommendation statement, and the writing and preparation of the final recommendation statement and its submission for publication. AHRQ staff had no role in the approval of the final recommendation statement or the decision to submit for publication.
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the US government. They should not be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Additional Contributions: We thank Howard Tracer, MD (AHRQ), who contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and Lisa Nicolella, MA (AHRQ), who assisted with coordination and editing.
Additional Information: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific preventive care services for patients without obvious related signs or symptoms. It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment. The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone. Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision-making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms.
2.Alberg
AJ , Brock
MV , Ford
JG ,
et al. Epidemiology of lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.
Chest. 2013;143(5 suppl):e1S-e29S.
Google Scholar 9.Aberle
DR , Adams
AM , Berg
CD ,
et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.
N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395-409. doi:
10.1056/NEJMoa1102873PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 10.Pinsky
PF , Church
TR , Izmirlian
G , Kramer
BS . The National Lung Screening Trial: results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology.
Cancer. 2013;119(22):3976-3983. doi:
10.1002/cncr.28326PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 12.Hirales Casillas
CE , Flores Fernández
JM , Padilla Camberos
E , Herrera López
EJ , Leal Pacheco
G , Martínez Velázquez
M . Current status of circulating protein biomarkers to aid the early detection of lung cancer.
Future Oncol. 2014;10(8):1501-1513. doi:
10.2217/fon.14.21PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 13.Oken
MM , Hocking
WG , Kvale
PA ,
et al; PLCO Project Team. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial.
JAMA. 2011;306(17):1865-1873. doi:
10.1001/jama.2011.1591PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 14.Meza
R , Jeon
J , Toumazis
I ,
et al. Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Collaborative Modeling Study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. AHRQ publication 20-05266-EF-2.
15.Meza
R , Jeon
J , Toumazis
I ,
et al. Evaluation of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
JAMA. Published March 9, 2021. doi:
10.1001/jama.2021.1077Google Scholar 17.Yan
TD , Black
D , Bannon
PG , McCaughan
BC . Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials on safety and efficacy of video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.
J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15):2553-2562. doi:
10.1200/JCO.2008.18.2733PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 19.Siu
AL ; US Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(8):622-634. doi:
10.7326/M15-2023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 22.Owens
DK , Davidson
KW , Krist
AH ,
et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions for prevention and cessation of tobacco use in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
JAMA. 2020;323(16):1590-1598. doi:
10.1001/jama.2020.4679PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 24.Jonas
D , Reuland
DS , Reddy
SM ,
et al. Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: An Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 198. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. AHRQ publication 20-05266-EF-1.
25.Jonas
DE , Reuland
DS , Shivani
SM ,
et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
JAMA. Published March 9, 2021. doi:
10.1001/jama.2021.0377Google Scholar 27.Yip
R , Henschke
CI , Yankelevitz
DF , Smith
JP . CT screening for lung cancer: alternative definitions of positive test result based on the National Lung Screening Trial and International Early Lung Cancer Action Program databases.
Radiology. 2014;273(2):591-596. doi:
10.1148/radiol.14132950PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 34.Katki
HA , Kovalchik
SA , Petito
LC ,
et al. Implications of nine risk prediction models for selecting ever-smokers for computed tomography lung cancer screening.
Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(1):10-19. doi:
10.7326/M17-2701PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 41.Rampinelli
C , De Marco
P , Origgi
D ,
et al. Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis.
BMJ. 2017;356:j347. doi:
10.1136/bmj.j347PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 43.Jaklitsch
MT , Jacobson
FL , Austin
JH ,
et al. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):33-38. doi:
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.060PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref