» Articles » PMID: 36889745

Lung Cancer Screening an Asbestos Exposed Population: Existing Lung Cancer Risk Criteria Are Not Sufficient

Overview
Journal Respirology
Specialty Pulmonary Medicine
Date 2023 Mar 8
PMID 36889745
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objective: Asbestos is a major risk factor for lung cancer, with or without tobacco smoke exposure. Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for early lung cancer is effective but only when targeting high risk populations. This study aimed to analyse the effectiveness of LDCT screening in an asbestos exposed population and to compare lung cancer screening program (LCSP) eligibility criteria.

Methods: Participants in an asbestos health surveillance program, the Western Australia Asbestos Review Program, underwent at least one LDCT scan and lung function assessment as part of annual review between 2012 and 2017. Lung cancer cases were confirmed through linkage to the WA cancer registry. Theoretical eligibility for different screening programs was calculated.

Results: Five thousand seven hundred and two LDCT scans were performed on 1743 individuals. The median age was 69.8 years, 1481 (85.0%) were male and 1147 (65.8%) were ever-smokers (median pack-year exposure of 20.0). Overall, 26 lung cancers were detected (1.5% of the population; 3.5 cases per 1000 person-years of observation). Lung cancer was early stage in 86.4% and four (15.4%) cases were never smokers. Based on current lung screening program criteria, 1299 (74.5%) of this population, including the majority (17, 65.4%) of lung cancer cases, would not have been eligible for any LCSP.

Conclusion: This population is at raised risk despite modest tobacco exposure. LDCT screening is effective at identifying early-stage lung cancer in this population and existing lung cancer risk criteria do not capture this population adequately.

Citing Articles

Smoking, mortality, access to diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer in Brazil.

Campos M, Rodrigues J, Marques A, Faria L, Sequeira Valerio T, da Silva M Rev Saude Publica. 2024; 58:18.

PMID: 38747866 PMC: 11090611. DOI: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005704.


Comparison of the effects of use, protection, improper renovation and removal of asbestos products on the example of typical old office buildings in Poland.

Obminski A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):13577.

PMID: 37604849 PMC: 10442424. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37257-z.


Lung cancer screening an asbestos exposed population: Existing lung cancer risk criteria are not sufficient.

Brims F, Harris E, Murray C, Kumarasamy C, Ho A, Adler B Respirology. 2023; 28(6):543-550.

PMID: 36889745 PMC: 10947558. DOI: 10.1111/resp.14487.

References
1.
Moon E, Son M, Jin Y, Park S, Lee W . Variations of lung cancer risk from asbestos exposure: impact on estimation of population attributable fraction. Ind Health. 2012; 51(1):128-33. DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.ms1350. View

2.
Cressman S, Lam S, Tammemagi M, Evans W, Leighl N, Regier D . Resource utilization and costs during the initial years of lung cancer screening with computed tomography in Canada. J Thorac Oncol. 2014; 9(10):1449-58. PMC: 4165479. DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000283. View

3.
Meza R, Jeon J, Toumazis I, Ten Haaf K, Cao P, Bastani M . 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. 2021; 325(10):988-997. PMC: 9208912. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.1077. View

4.
Patz Jr E, Pinsky P, Gatsonis C, Sicks J, Kramer B, Tammemagi M . Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 174(2):269-74. PMC: 4040004. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12738. View

5.
Fritschi L, Driscoll T . Cancer due to occupation in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2006; 30(3):213-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2006.tb00860.x. View