You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 167 No. 21, November 26, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Special Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Pulmonary Diseases, Other
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Diagnosis
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Screening
 •Oncology
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Overstating the Evidence for Lung Cancer Screening

The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) Study

H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH; Steven Woloshin, MD, MS; Lisa M. Schwartz, MD, MS; Leon Gordis, MD, MPH, DrPH; Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD, MPH; Russell Harris, MD, MPH; Barnett S. Kramer, MD, MPH; David F. Ransohoff, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(21):2289-2295.

Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine ran a lead article reporting that patients with lung cancer had a 10-year survival approaching 90% if detected by screening spiral computed tomography. The publication garnered considerable media attention, and some felt that its findings provided a persuasive case for the immediate initiation of lung cancer screening. We strongly disagree. In this article, we highlight 4 reasons why the publication does not make a persuasive case for screening: the study had no control group, it lacked an unbiased outcome measure, it did not consider what is already known about this topic from previous studies, and it did not address the harms of screening. We conclude with 2 fundamental principles that physicians should remember when thinking about screening: (1) survival is always prolonged by early detection, even when deaths are not delayed nor any lives saved, and (2) randomized trials are the only way to reliably determine whether screening does more good than harm.


Author Affiliations: VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire (Drs Welch, Woloshin, and Schwartz); Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr Gordis); Nordic Cochrane Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark (Dr Gøtzsche); University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill (Drs Harris and Ransohoff); and Office of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (Dr Kramer).



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Commentary: Lung Cancer Screening--Progress or Peril
Mulshine
The Oncologist 2008;13:435-438.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.