Retrospective cohort study reveals treatment impacts survival in lung cancer, suggesting broader screening eligibility may be needed.
Objectives: Current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening restrict low-dose chest CT (LDCT) eligibility to those willing to undergo surgery. Little is known about comorbidities, treatment, and lung cancer outcomes among LDCT-screened patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined all patients diagnosed with lung cancer within a prospective registry of 1805 consecutive LDCT-screened patients from March 1, 2015, to March 1, 2020, in a single large health care system. We assessed baseline comorbidity burden, pulmonary function, treatment, and survival, including a prespecified focus on patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results: Thirty-eight patients had LDCT-detected lung cancer; median age was 69.7, median pack-years smoked was 40.0, 47.4% had emphysema, median Charlson-Deyo score was 4, and 23.7% underwent surgery. Among patients with stage I NSCLC who either received surgery (n=6) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT; n=11), a trend for surgery-treated patients to have higher performance status, higher baseline pulmonary function, and lower Charlson-Deyo score was observed. After a median follow-up of 63 months, lung cancer-specific survival was 66.7% versus 90.9% for surgery versus SBRT, while median overall survival was 82.2 versus 42.9 months ( P =0.26). Conclusions: Over three-quarters of community patients with LDCT-detected lung cancer do not receive surgery. Despite generally higher comorbidity, patients with early-stage disease receiving SBRT survived several yearsand had numerically higher lung cancer-specific survival than patients receiving surgery. Restricting LDCT screening to surgical candidates may not reflect modern outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Powell et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: