Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006 98(11):748-756; doi:10.1093/jnci/djj207
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (23)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marcus, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fontana, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marcus, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fontana, R. S.
Related Collections
Right arrowEditorial about this Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press.

ARTICLE

Extended Lung Cancer Incidence Follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and Overdiagnosis

Pamela M. Marcus, Erik J. Bergstralh, Mark H. Zweig, Ann Harris, Kenneth P. Offord, Robert S. Fontana

Affiliations of authors: Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD (PMM, MHZ); Division of Biostatistics (EJB), Survey Research Center (AH, KPO), Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (RSF), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Correspondence to: Pamela M. Marcus, PhD, Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd., Suite 3131, Bethesda, MD 20895-7354 (e-mail: pm145q{at}nih.gov).

Background: A troubling aspect of cancer screening is the potential for overdiagnosis, i.e., detection of disease that, in the absence of screening, would never have been diagnosed. Overdiagnosis is of particular concern in lung cancer screening because newer screening modalities can identify small nodules of unknown clinical significance. Previously published analyses of data from the Mayo Lung Project, a large randomized controlled trial conducted among 9211 male cigarette smokers in the 1970s and early 1980s indicated that overdiagnosis might exist in lung cancer screening. At the end of follow-up (July 1, 1983), no difference in lung cancer mortality was observed, but an excess of 46 cases in the intervention arm suggested overdiagnosis. Because that excess could instead have resulted from short follow-up time, we investigated this possibility by conducting long-term lung cancer incidence follow-up. Methods: We investigated the lung cancer status through 1999 of the 7118 participants in the Mayo Lung Project who were alive and without diagnosed lung cancer in 1983 by use of medical records, surveys mailed to participants or next-of-kin, and state death certificates. Results: Information was available for 6101 participants, including 811 with inconclusive lung cancer status. From November 1971 through December 31, 1999, 585 participants in the intervention arm and 500 in the usual-care arm were diagnosed with lung cancer. Conclusions: The persistence of excess cases in the intervention arm after 16 additional years of follow-up provides continued support for overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Editorial about this Article

Lung Cancer Screening, Overdiagnosis Bias, and Reevaluation of the Mayo Lung Project
Edward F. Patz, Jr.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2006 98: 724-725. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Cancer Prevention ResearchHome page
B. J. Reid
Cancer Risk Assessment and Cancer Prevention: Promises and Challenges
Cancer Prevention Research, September 1, 2008; 1(4): 229 - 232.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
P. M. McMahon, C. Y. Kong, B. E. Johnson, M. C. Weinstein, J. C. Weeks, K. M. Kuntz, J.-A. O. Shepard, S. J. Swensen, and G. S. Gazelle
Estimating Long-term Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening in the Mayo CT Screening Study
Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 278 - 287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
J. R. Jett and D. E. Midthun
Commentary: CT Screening for Lung Cancer--Caveat Emptor
Oncologist, April 1, 2008; 13(4): 439 - 444.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
H. G. Welch, S. Woloshin, L. M. Schwartz, L. Gordis, P. C. Gotzsche, R. Harris, B. S. Kramer, and D. F. Ransohoff
Overstating the Evidence for Lung Cancer Screening: The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) Study
Arch Intern Med, November 26, 2007; 167(21): 2289 - 2295.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
J. Aisner
CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Are We Ready for Wide-Scale Application?
Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2007; 13(17): 4951 - 4953.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
A. Morabia and S. Markowitz
Re: Extended Lung Cancer Incidence Follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and Overdiagnosis
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 6, 2007; 99(11): 898 - 899.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
P. M. Marcus, A. Harris, and K. P. Offord
Response: Re: Extended Lung Cancer Incidence Follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and Overdiagnosis
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 6, 2007; 99(11): 899 - 899.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
P. M McMahon and D. C Christiani
Computed tomography screening for lung cancer
BMJ, February 10, 2007; 334(7588): 271 - 271.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JWatch GeneralHome page
Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening
Journal Watch (General), July 4, 2006; 2006(704): 3 - 3.
[Full Text]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
E. F. Patz Jr.
Lung cancer screening, overdiagnosis bias, and reevaluation of the Mayo Lung Project.
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 7, 2006; 98(11): 724 - 725.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.