Impact of lung cancer screening on stage migration and mortality among the national Veterans Health Administration population with lung cancer

Donna M. Edwards,Mina Pirzadeh,Tony Van,Ralph Jiang,Akshay Tate,Grace Schaefer,Jadyn James,Caroline Bishop,Cydnee Wilson,Nicholas Nedzesky,Aaren Alseri,Anthony Leveque,Amanda Malus,Akbar Waljee,David A. Elliott,Jane Deng,Ann Schwartz,Matthew Schipper,Alex K. Bryant,Nithya Ramnath,Michael D. Green
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35340
IF: 6.9209
2024-06-11
Cancer
Abstract:Background Despite randomized trials demonstrating a mortality benefit to low‐dose computed tomography screening to detect lung cancer, uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow, and the benefits of screening remain unclear in clinical practice. Methods This study aimed to assess the impact of screening among patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) health care system diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2018. Lung cancer stage at diagnosis, lung cancer–specific survival, and overall survival between patients with cancer who did and did not receive screening before diagnosis were evaluated. We used Cox regression modeling and inverse propensity weighting analyses with lead time bias adjustment to correlate LCS exposure with patient outcomes. Results Of 57,919 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer in the VA system between 2011 and 2018, 2167 (3.9%) underwent screening before diagnosis. Patients with screening had higher rates of stage I diagnoses (52% vs. 27%; p ≤ .0001) compared to those who had no screening. Screened patients had improved 5‐year overall survival rates (50.2% vs. 27.9%) and 5‐year lung cancer–specific survival (59.0% vs. 29.7%) compared to unscreened patients. Among screening‐eligible patients who underwent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline–concordant treatment, screening resulted in substantial reductions in all‐cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67–0.92; p = .003) and lung‐specific mortality (aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50–0.74; p
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?