Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Analyzing the reporting of lung cancer CT screening

Gary Schwitzer
Conditions
July 1, 2011
2 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share

It’s been another challenging week for journalists covering various screening stories.

First the new analysis of Swedish mammography studies: Some familiar flaws surfaced in some stories.

Then came the followup analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial – first reported last fall.

This week various headlines announced:

  • More evidence CT scans better at detecting lung cancer
  • Study bolsters evidence that screening reduces lung cancer deaths
  • Nat’l Study Shows Long-Term Smokers Should Get Lung Cancer CT Scan

Most (but not that last one) commented on the tremendous health care policy and cost implications of more aggressive lung CT screening. Most also reported something about the very high rate of false positives in the study – although some downplayed the false positives – allowing one researcher, for example, to say that “there are no significant harms due to screening.” That is a comment that must be challenged, and we’ll provide more perspectives on this later.

But one story stood out in our searches for how imbalanced and incomplete it was – and because of the broad reach it could have because it was broadcast on a national television network. Among national news stories we saw, the following ABC News piece offered no discussion of false positives, no discussion of cost, but used hyperbolic, promotional language.

  • It called CT scans “simple.” There’s nothing simple about this decision.
  • It cited a cost of a “mere $99” – not to be matched in many locations across the US and failing to take into account the followup costs of the considerable number of false positives.
  • It used as its primary source a researcher who is facing significant conflict of interest charges.
  • It promoted screening advice that simply hasn’t been established and didn’t cite the source of that advice.
  • It offered to help viewers find hospitals who could scan them – journalism? Or advertising?

Someone at ABC might say, you should have checked our website, which had more information. But the readers/viewers who asked me to review this story did not see the ABC website; they saw the ABC network TV piece.

One of our HealthNewsReview.org medical editors, Harry Demonaco, who directs the Innovation Support Center at the Massachusetts General Hospital, critiqued the ABC piece:

“The NLST paper is really a tour de force that was masterfully crafted and operationalized. The authors presented the results in a well balanced fashion. Unfortunately, the ABC News report did not.There are 94 Million smokers at risk for lung cancer in the United States today. According to the NSLT authors only about 7 million of them would meet the eligibility criteria to have been included in the study. This is important because the results may not be generalizable to the remainder 87 million smokers.

Yes, there were more lung cancers diagnosed with spiral CT as compared to an x-ray. The survival of patients depends a good deal on how early or late the cancer is detected, so early detection is better than late. But people need to dig a bit deeper into the data to get a better understanding of the study results. There were 427 deaths from lung cancer in the CT group as compared to 503 in the x-ray group. That’s a difference of 76 people in almost 54,000 people screened. Or, put another way 22.9% of the deaths in the group who had CT scans were caused by lung cancer as compared to 25.3% in the chest X-ray group.

There was a cost to those lives saved. 26,722 people were screened with CT scans and 6413 had a suspicious lesion that required follow up. Of those, 6182 were found to be false positives. This compares to 1844 positive findings with X-ray and 1743 false positives. More suspicious lesions found is a good thing but not without a cost. 75 of the folks who had a false positive finding on CT had a major complication associated with the follow up studies and compared to 24 in the chest X-ray group. Finding more cancers early is a good thing. Unfortunately there is a negative aspect to those findings.

The ABC report provides the listener with an amazingly unbalanced report on what is a landmark study. Focusing solely on the benefits without acknowledging the limitations of the study, its generalizabilty to the average smoker or ex-smoker and the complications associated with CT scans certainly does not inform.”

How will this story play out at the local level across the country? The local ABC station in Minneapolis-St. Paul posted a virtual commercial for a local hospital’s scanning.

But a far more cautious approach was demonstrated in the local St. Paul Pioneer Press. Its reporter looked at the same offer of discount scans from the same hospital and reported that “screening is not a free lunch”:

“Abbott Northwestern said it was offering the screening at a special low price that covers both scan and interpretation of the imaging study. Screening experts, however, said the hospital will more than make up for any discount on the front end.
“All those abnormalities that will be found will lead to more scanning,” said Peter Bach, a physician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “It will be a financial boon to the hospital …

… “While the study showed a substantial and statistically significant reduction in mortality from lung cancer, it has to be balanced by the potential harm from screening that has not yet been fully evaluated,” said Timothy Church, a researcher at the (University of Minnesota). “

It’s worth noting that when we reviewed news coverage of the initial release of NLST findings last fall, ABC also had the least balanced report of the ones we saw.

There may be institutional biases at play – reflections of individual biases on the part of key people at some news organizations.

And lest anyone accuse me of bias on this issue, let me be clear: I would never tell anyone not to be screened just as I would never tell anyone to be screened. First, I’m not a physician. Second, I don’t think journalists should give health care advice. I react when news stories don’t adequately inform consumers who may make unwise decisions based on what they’ve read or heard. This ABC piece wouldn’t be a good starting – or ending point – for such information.

Instead, see the comments from Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society

“Guidelines groups have yet to carefully evaluate these and other data to determine who should and should not consider undergoing screening for early lung cancer detection and how often. Best practices have yet to be defined and in place in all clinical settings that will offer screening and diagnostic procedures, nor are we prepared to articulate the details that high risk individuals should hear before making a decision to undergo screening.
As this study demonstrates, the rate of findings suspicious for lung cancer was high in each screening round (over 27% in the first two rounds), but low-dose CT exams also can identify other non-lung related abnormalities, and this positivity rate also was high. So managing abnormal findings and avoiding doing harm in individuals with false positive findings are among the major challenges we will confront.

A very sobering observation in this report is that there were 26 deaths associated with invasive diagnostic procedures. We are reminded of the period right after the results of the first mammography screening trial were published in the late 1970s. Our country did not rush into screening, but rather the ACS and the NCI rushed to implement the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project as a strategy to gain experience in the community based implementation of breast cancer screening. We must prepare to implement lung cancer screening in an even more deliberate and organized manner to ensure steady progress towards maximizing benefits, minimizing harms, and insuring that appropriate screening takes place based on risk.

While the study showed that screening can reduce the risk of lung cancer death in current and former smokers, we must always emphasize that screening is a secondary risk reduction strategy to smoking cessation. Proven smoking cessation strategies and the policies that promote them, including strong smoke-free laws, higher tobacco taxes, and fully funded smoking cessation programs, remain critical in the fight against cancer. The findings of this study do not diminish their importance, nor do they suggest that resources could be shifted from prevention to early detection. We estimate that quitting smoking will in ten years time reduce a smoker’s risk of death from lung cancer as much as CT screening did in this study.

Finally, if and when major groups do make a recommendation for screening, it will be important that those considering screening be made aware of the significant number of false positive findings and potential other harms associated with downstream testing that can occur with spiral CT scanning.”

We know that journalists struggle with screening stories. A simple reminder may help them do a better job: All screening tests do harm; some may also do good. If you don’t reflect that in your story, you’re probably doing harm as well.

Gary Schwitzer has specialized in health care journalism in his more than 30-year career in radio, television, interactive multimedia and the Internet.  He is publisher of HealthNewsReview.org.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

Prev

Dwyane Wade and the NBA's insensitivity to his migraines

July 1, 2011 Kevin 5
…
Next

How Twitter is a library and field work combined

July 1, 2011 Kevin 1
…

Tagged as: Oncology/Hematology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Dwyane Wade and the NBA's insensitivity to his migraines
Next Post >
How Twitter is a library and field work combined

More by Gary Schwitzer

  • Fact-checking faces steep challenges in health care

    Gary Schwitzer
  • Prostate cancer screening campaigns are giving men the finger

    Gary Schwitzer
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Cancer screening stories need to report on the uncertainties

    Gary Schwitzer

More in Conditions

  • Lazarus: the dead man brought back to life

    William Lynes, MD
  • The psychoanalytic hammer: lessons in listening and patient-centered care

    Greg Smith, MD
  • 5 essential tips to help men prevent prostate cancer

    Kevin Jones, MD
  • Changing the pediatric care landscape: Integrating behavioral and mental health care

    Hilary M. Bowers, MD
  • Unlocking the secret to successful weight loss: Curiosity is the key

    Franchell Hamilton, MD
  • The teacher who changed my life through reading

    Raymond Abbott
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Nobody wants this job. Should physicians stick around?

      Katie Klingberg, MD | Physician
    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Healing the damaged nurse-physician dynamic

      Angel J. Mena, MD and Ali Morin, MSN, RN | Policy
    • The struggle to fill emergency medicine residency spots: Exploring the factors behind the unfilled match

      Katrina Gipson, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Deaths of despair: an urgent call for a collective response to the crisis in U.S. life expectancy

      Mohammed Umer Waris, MD | Policy
    • Breaking the stigma: Addressing the struggles of physicians

      Jean Antonucci, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • The hidden dangers of the Nebraska Heartbeat Act

      Meghan Sheehan, MD | Policy
    • The vital importance of climate change education in medical schools

      Helen Kim, MD | Policy
    • The fight for reproductive health: Why medication abortion matters

      Catherine Hennessey, MD | Physician
    • Nobody wants this job. Should physicians stick around?

      Katie Klingberg, MD | Physician
    • Resetting the doctor-patient relationship: Navigating the challenges of modern primary care

      Jeffrey H. Millstein, MD | Physician
    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
  • Recent Posts

    • Lazarus: the dead man brought back to life

      William Lynes, MD | Conditions
    • Revolutionizing COPD management with virtual care solutions [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What I think it means to be a medical student in the wake of AI

      Jackson J. McCue | Tech
    • It’s time for C-suite to contract directly with physicians for part-time work

      Aaron Morgenstein, MD & Corinne Sundar Rao, MD | Physician
    • The psychoanalytic hammer: lessons in listening and patient-centered care

      Greg Smith, MD | Conditions
    • From rural communities to underserved populations: How telemedicine is bridging health care gaps

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Physician

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

Leave a Comment

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

CME Spotlights

From MedPage Today

Latest News

  • Sam Neill's Rare Lymphoma
  • Day in the Life of a Doctor: Treating a Patient With Septic Shock
  • Paxlovid May Lower Long COVID Risk, VA Study Suggests
  • Digital Inhalers May Improve Uncontrolled Asthma Management
  • Another Win for Zolbetuximab in Advanced Gastric/GEJ Cancer

Meeting Coverage

  • Switch to IL-23 Blocker Yields Deep Responses in Recalcitrant Plaque Psoriasis
  • Biomarkers of Response With Enfortumab Vedotin in Advanced Urothelial Cancer
  • At-Home Topical Therapy for Molluscum Contagiosum Gets High Marks
  • Outlook for Itchy Prurigo Nodularis Continues to Improve With IL-31 Antagonist
  • AAAAI President Shares Highlights From the 2023 Meeting
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Nobody wants this job. Should physicians stick around?

      Katie Klingberg, MD | Physician
    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Healing the damaged nurse-physician dynamic

      Angel J. Mena, MD and Ali Morin, MSN, RN | Policy
    • The struggle to fill emergency medicine residency spots: Exploring the factors behind the unfilled match

      Katrina Gipson, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Deaths of despair: an urgent call for a collective response to the crisis in U.S. life expectancy

      Mohammed Umer Waris, MD | Policy
    • Breaking the stigma: Addressing the struggles of physicians

      Jean Antonucci, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • The hidden dangers of the Nebraska Heartbeat Act

      Meghan Sheehan, MD | Policy
    • The vital importance of climate change education in medical schools

      Helen Kim, MD | Policy
    • The fight for reproductive health: Why medication abortion matters

      Catherine Hennessey, MD | Physician
    • Nobody wants this job. Should physicians stick around?

      Katie Klingberg, MD | Physician
    • Resetting the doctor-patient relationship: Navigating the challenges of modern primary care

      Jeffrey H. Millstein, MD | Physician
    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
  • Recent Posts

    • Lazarus: the dead man brought back to life

      William Lynes, MD | Conditions
    • Revolutionizing COPD management with virtual care solutions [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What I think it means to be a medical student in the wake of AI

      Jackson J. McCue | Tech
    • It’s time for C-suite to contract directly with physicians for part-time work

      Aaron Morgenstein, MD & Corinne Sundar Rao, MD | Physician
    • The psychoanalytic hammer: lessons in listening and patient-centered care

      Greg Smith, MD | Conditions
    • From rural communities to underserved populations: How telemedicine is bridging health care gaps

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Physician

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today iMedicalApps
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...