While the assiduity of Castleberry et al
in compiling and analysing this huge data assemblage is commendable, regrettably,
their conclusion that population CT screening is more cost-effective than symptomatic
tumour identification at improving lung cancer (LC) outcomes is based on three demonstrably
flawed premises:
Survival is a valid metric of LC screening efficacy. Efficacy denotes a reduction
in mortality. Although it is counter-intuitive, increased LC survival has not proven
to be a valid surrogate or proxy for increased life expectancy. Using SEER data, Welch
et al (2000) reported that in 1950–1954 vs 1989–1995, 5-year LC survival more than
doubled (from 6 to 14%), while the increase in incidence (249%) was exceeded by the
increase in mortality (259%). Similarly, 5-year LC survival in the intervention cohorts
of the randomised, prospective, Mayo Lung Program and Czech trials of radiographic
screening was more than twice that in the controls. Nevertheless, their mortality
exceeded that of the controls (Reich, 2002).
Favourable 5-year survival estimates demonstrate the effectiveness of LC screening.
Effectiveness denotes outcomes in community settings. It presupposes efficacy, the
maximum reduction in mortality attainable in centers of excellence in which staffs
are highly proficient, subjects are pre-screened to exclude those with clinically
significant morbidities, and the ‘healthy volunteer effect' obtains. As these conditions
are not uniformly and comprehensively met in community settings, their outcomes will
be predictably less favourable. Since efficacy of LC screening has not been demonstrated,
estimates of cost-effectiveness are meaningless.
Overdiagnosis is so infrequent that it can be disregarded. Overdiagnosis denotes the
screen identification of LCs that are clinically irrelevant, that is, that would not
have become manifest within the individual's lifetime. On the basis of the excess
number of LCs identified in the intervention cohorts vs controls in the Mayo Lung
Project and Czech screening trials, I estimated that the radiographic overdiagnosis
exceeded 25% (Reich, 2008). This estimate is conservative, for the computation assumed
that all control cases, many of which were screen-identified, were clinically relevant.
Owing to its exquisite sensitivity in identifying small, slow-growing cancers, CT
screening overdiagnosis will be quite possibly twice this figure (Reich, 2008).
Because of its import and its critical contribution to the controversy surrounding
LC screening, the implications of overdiagnosis deserve elaboration. Although some
authors have insisted on its non-existence, advancing in support the well-known lethality
of clinically identified LC, it is important to acknowledge that screening identifies
a phenotypically less aggressive LC population. A belief in its invariable lethality
entails the untenable corollary that, however obtained, a diagnosis of LC confers
immunity to death from all other causes. The issue therefore is quantity. In considering
the much-disputed point about its frequency, the following should be taken into account.
(1) The majority of screen-identified cases are slow-growing stage I adenocarcinomas,
whose natural history permits lengthy exposure to competing lethal morbidities, which
are particularly common among older smokers. (2) Although volunteers were selected
for participation in trials on the basis of their high risk for LC combined with their
excellent health and ability to undergo resectional thoracic surgery, competing lethal
morbidities were a far more frequent cause of death than LC. For example, in the Mayo
Lung Project, non-LC deaths (most of them attributed to coronary artery disease) were
sevenfold the deaths due to LC. (3) Individuals disputing the existence of a substantial
number of overdiagnosed persons point out the high death rate of persons with stage
I LC who decline intervention. This assumption incorrectly imputes LC as the cause
of death among many persons whose decision, without doubt, reflects their or their
physician's recognition of manifest lethal comorbidities. It is a tautological fallacy
to ascribe their deaths to previously diagnosed LC and conclude that stage I LC is
therefore invariably lethal.
Overdiagnosis has two insidious effects. First, it favourably biases outcome estimates.
As overdiagnosed persons, by definition, die of another cause, their LC survival will
be 100% with or without therapy. Thus, their contribution to outcome improvement as
reflected in LC survival is entirely spurious. Second, overdiagnosed persons experience
the psychological harm and the risks and morbidities of invasive diagnostic procedures
and resectional surgery with no possible offsetting benefit. Furthermore, owing to
the loss of pulmonary reserve, the courses of their smoking-induced cardiopulmonary
comorbidities are foreshortened. Brown et al (1993), using SEER database figures,
reported that the non-cancer relative hazard of death in persons with LC was nearly
threefold that in persons with colon or breast cancer.
Additional considerations: The cost estimates of population screening are immense.
Per 5-year survival, the authors estimate a cost of 100- to 300-thousand dollars.
Even if this enhanced survival translated into a reduction in mortality, its justification,
considering other health-related obligations and alternative means of reducing LC
mortality, would be open to question. More than 90% of the positive tests in CT trials
are false positive, that is, the positive predictive value of a positive test is <10%.
The emotional and surgical import of false-positive tests merit emphasis: Wilson et
al (2008), in a CT screening study of 3642 persons, reported that 41% had non-calcified
nodules, 95% of which were non-cancerous. Fifty-four subjects underwent thoracic surgery
for LC; half as many (28) underwent thoracic surgery for benign disorders to exclude
LC.
In summary, the current evidence indicates no benefit and a high likelihood of harm
from mass CT LC screening of the at-risk population.