4.7 Review

Chest CT Scan Screening for Lung Cancer in Asbestos Occupational Exposure A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

CHEST
卷 145, 期 6, 页码 1339-1346

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-2181

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Lung cancer is the most frequent malignant asbestos-related pathology and remains the most fatal cancer of industrialized countries. In heavy smokers, early detection of lung cancer with chest CT scan leads to a 20% mortality reduction. However, the use of CT scan screening for early detection of lung cancer in asbestos-exposed workers requires further investigation. This study aimed to determine whether CT scan screening in asbestos-exposed workers is effective in detecting asymptomatic lung cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We reviewed all cohort studies involving chest CT scan screening in former asbestosexposed workers. The search strategy used the following keywords: asbestos, lung cancer, screening, and occupation* or work. Databases were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Embase. Results: Seven studies matched our inclusion criteria. Baseline screening detected 49 asymptomatic lung cancers among 5,074 asbestos-exposed workers. Of the 49 reported lung cancers, at least 18 were in the earliest stage (stage I), accessible to complete removal surgery. The prevalence of all lung cancers detected by CT scan screening in asbestos-exposed workers was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-1.8%). Conclusions: CT scan screening in asbestos-exposed workers is effective in detecting asymptomatic lung cancer. Detection of lung cancer in asbestos-exposed workers using CT scanning is at least equal to the prevalence in heavy smokers (1%; 95% CI, 0.09%-1.1%) and also shared a similar proportion of stage I diagnoses. Screening asbestos-exposed workers could reduce mortality in proportions previously observed among heavy smokers and, thus, should not be neglected, particularly for individuals combining both exposures.

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