4.7 Article

The National Lung Screening Trial: Overview and Study Design

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 258, 期 1, 页码 243-253

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091808

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health and Human Services via the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute
  2. Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute
  3. National Institutes of Health [U01 CA079778, U01 CA080098]
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U01CA079778, U10CA080098, U01CA080098] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is a randomized multicenter study comparing low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) with chest radiography in the screening of older current and former heavy smokers for early detection of lung cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Five-year survival rates approach 70% with surgical resection of stage IA disease; however, more than 75% of individuals have incurable locally advanced or metastatic disease, the latter having a 5-year survival of less than 5%. It is plausible that treatment should be more effective and the likelihood of death decreased if asymptomatic lung cancer is detected through screening early enough in its preclinical phase. For these reasons, there is intense interest and intuitive appeal in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. The use of survival as the determinant of screening effectiveness is, however, confounded by the well-described biases of lead time, length, and overdiagnosis. Despite previous attempts, no test has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, an endpoint that circumvents screening biases and provides a definitive measure of benefit when assessed in a randomized controlled trial that enables comparison of mortality rates between screened individuals and a control group that does not undergo the screening intervention of interest. The NLST is such a trial. The rationale for and design of the NLST are presented. (C) RSNA, 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据