Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Overdiagnosis during lung cancer screening: is it an overemphasised, underappreciated, or tangential issue?
  1. Frank C Detterbeck
  1. Correspondence to Dr Frank C Detterbeck, Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, PO Box 208062, New Haven, CT 06520-8062, USA; frank.detterbeck{at}yale.edu

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The issue of overdiagnosis is frequently raised in the context of lung cancer screening. Two recent papers draw attention to this matter: one by Patz et al,1 which estimates the incidence of overdiagnosis in the experience of the National Lung Screening Trial, and the US Preventative Services Task Force report that recommends screening in an organised programme for individuals at an elevated risk of developing lung cancer.2 Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

Overdiagnosis—what is it exactly? There are many definitions. In the Patz paper these are excess cancers identified in the screening arm of a randomised trial (either in general or among only screen-detected cancers). These excess cancers remain asymptomatic, by definition, since they would otherwise be detected in the non-screening arm during a follow-up phase (‘catch-up period’)—the duration of which is important. A more abstract definition is any excess cancer detected by screening that would not cause death if untreated, whether it becomes symptomatic or not. Others define it as cancer with a long volume doubling time (>400 days) during a period of observation, without addressing what might happen later.3 An existential view considers any cancer as overdiagnosed if the patient dies of other causes, regardless …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Airwaves
    Andrew Bush Ian Pavord