Retrospective cohort study shows enhanced early-stage lung cancer detection with AI-assisted thin-section CT in non-high-risk individuals, indicating benefits of expanding screening criteria.
Background Current lung cancer screening guidelines recommend annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk individuals. However, the effectiveness of LDCT in non-high-risk individuals remains inadequately explored. With the incidence of lung cancer steadily increasing among non-high-risk individuals, this study aims to assess the risk of lung cancer in non-high-risk individuals and evaluate the potential of thin-section LDCT reconstruction combined with artificial intelligence (LDCT-TRAI) as a screening tool. Methods A real-world cohort study on lung cancer screening was conducted at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2010 to July 2021. Participants were screened using either LDCT-TRAI or traditional thick-section LDCT without AI (traditional LDCT) . The AI system employed was the uAI-ChestCare software. Lung cancer diagnoses were confirmed through pathological examination. Results Among the 259 121 enrolled non-high-risk participants, 87 260 (33.7%) had positive screening results. Within 1 year, 728 (0.3%) participants were diagnosed with lung cancer, of whom 87.1% (634/728) were never-smokers, and 92.7% (675/728) presented with stage I disease. Compared with traditional LDCT, LDCT-TRAI demonstrated a higher lung cancer detection rate (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P < 0.001), particularly for stage I cancers (94.4% vs. 83.2%, P < 0.001), and was associated with improved survival outcomes (5-year overall survival rate: 95.4% vs. 81.3%, P < 0.0001). Conclusion These findings highlight the importance of expanding lung cancer screening to non-high-risk populations, especially never-smokers. LDCT-TRAI outperformed traditional LDCT in detecting early-stage cancers and improving survival outcomes, underscoring its potential as a more effective screening tool for early lung cancer detection in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ji et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: