Early detection of lung cancer in a population at high risk due to occupation and smoking

26Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: The US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends two pathways for eligibility for Early Lung Cancer Detection (ELCD) programmes. Option 2 includes individuals with occupational exposures to lung carcinogens, in combination with a lesser requirement on smoking. Our objective was to determine if this algorithm resulted in a similar prevalence of lung cancer as has been found using smoking risk alone, and if so to present an approach for lung cancer screening in high-risk worker populations. Methods: We enrolled 1260 former workers meeting NCCN criteria, with modifications to account for occupational exposures in an ELCD programme. Results: At baseline, 1.6% had a lung cancer diagnosed, a rate similar to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST). Among NLST participants, 59% were current smokers at the time of baseline scan or had quit smoking fewer than 15 years prior to baseline; all had a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking. Among our population, only 24.5% were current smokers and 40.1% of our participants had smoked fewer than 30 pack-years; only 43.5% would meet entry criteria for the NLST. The most likely explanation for the high prevalence of screen-detected lung cancers in the face of a reduced risk from smoking is the addition of occupational risk factors for lung cancer. Conclusion: Occupational exposures to lung carcinogens should be incorporated into criteria used for ELCD programmes, using the algorithm developed by NCCN or with an individualised risk assessment; current risk assessment tools can be modified to incorporate occupational risk.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Welch, L. S., Dement, J. M., Cranford, K., Shorter, J., Quinn, P. S., Madtes, D. K., & Ringen, K. (2019). Early detection of lung cancer in a population at high risk due to occupation and smoking. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 76(3), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2018-105431

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free