肺癌筛查替代标准的制定与实施。

IF 19.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI:10.7326/M23-3250
Lauren E Kearney, Patrick Belancourt, Hormuzd A Katki, Nichole T Tanner, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Hilary A Robbins, Rebecca Landy, Tanner J Caverly
{"title":"肺癌筛查替代标准的制定与实施。","authors":"Lauren E Kearney, Patrick Belancourt, Hormuzd A Katki, Nichole T Tanner, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Hilary A Robbins, Rebecca Landy, Tanner J Caverly","doi":"10.7326/M23-3250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Model-based projections.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014-2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. \"High-benefit\" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [<i>P</i> < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [<i>P</i> = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [<i>P</i> = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>The results were based on model projections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":19.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren E Kearney, Patrick Belancourt, Hormuzd A Katki, Nichole T Tanner, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Hilary A Robbins, Rebecca Landy, Tanner J Caverly\",\"doi\":\"10.7326/M23-3250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Model-based projections.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014-2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. \\\"High-benefit\\\" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; <i>P</i> < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [<i>P</i> < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [<i>P</i> = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [<i>P</i> = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>The results were based on model projections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-3250\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-3250","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)制定的肺癌筛查(LCS)建议可能会将一些高受益人群排除在外:目的:确定替代标准能否识别出这些高受益人群:设计:基于模型的预测:环境:美国:1997-2014年全国健康访谈调查(NHIS)中的人群,利用快速节俭树算法制定替代标准;2014-2018年NHIS和2022年行为风险因素监测系统中的人群,比较USPSTF标准和替代标准:使用筛查计算机断层扫描(LYFS-CT)模型估算 LCS 获得的寿命年数。"高收益 "被定义为每年进行 3 次筛查,平均至少可获得 16.2 天的生命,这反映了肺癌的高风险以及通过筛查发现肺癌后可获得的可观生命收益:最终的备选标准是:1)每年吸烟至少 40 年,或 2)60 至 80 岁,吸烟至少 40 包年。USPSTF 和备选标准选择的 LCS 人数相似。与 USPSTF 标准相比,替代标准在识别高获益人群方面具有更高的灵敏度(91% 对 78%;P < 0.001)和特异性(86% 对 84%;P < 0.001)。对于少数种族和民族,替代标准比 USPSTF 标准(黑人:83% 对 56% [P < 0.001];西班牙裔:95% 对 73% [P = 0.086];亚裔:94% 对 68% [P = 0.171])在相似的特异性条件下提供了更高的灵敏度。替代标准确定了被 USPSTF 标准排除在外的高风险、高收益群体(吸烟时间≥40 年但未满 15 年者),其中许多人是少数种族和民族成员:局限性:结果基于模型预测:这些结果表明,简单的替代性 LCS 标准可以识别出更多的高受益人群,尤其是在某些种族和民族群体中:主要资金来源:美国退伍军人事务部肺部精准肿瘤学项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people.

Objective: To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people.

Design: Model-based projections.

Setting: United States.

Participants: People from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014-2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria.

Measurements: Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. "High-benefit" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening.

Results: The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; P < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; P < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [P < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [P = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [P = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities.

Limitation: The results were based on model projections.

Conclusion: These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups.

Primary funding source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
期刊最新文献
Hormonal Treatments and Vaginal Moisturizers for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause : A Systematic Review. Hormonal Treatments and Vaginal Moisturizers for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause. Association Between Hospital Type and Resilience During COVID-19 Caseload Stress : A Retrospective Cohort Study. Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause : An Evidence Map. Guidelines Recommending That Clinicians Advise Patients on Lifestyle Changes: A Popular but Questionable Approach to Improve Public Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1