Read Original Story

Lung Cancer Screening Often Raises False Alarm


5 Star

Lung Cancer Screening Often Raises False Alarm

Our Review Summary

An article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine  adds new fuel to the debate over the utility of lung cancer screening. The ongoing results of the National Lung Screening Trial from the National Cancer Institute are highly anticipated and many hope it will bring some clarity to this controversial topic. The full results won’t be available for another year or two, however this week’s publication provides a look at an important drawback of screening: false positive results. Preliminary results show that up to a third of all suspicious nodules found on CT scan were not actually cancer. For the patient, this means unnecessary anxiety, additional follow-up testing, and potentially risky and invasive procedures. Fundamentally, whether or not screening the benefits of screening justify these risks remains to be seen.

This story, in relatively few words, is notably strong in describing these risks, not only in quantitative terms, but in terms that are meaningful to someone considering screening.


Why This Matters

Both CT scans and x-rays generate significant numbers of false positive results when used to screen for lung cancer. Patients should carefully consider the consequences of these tests before initiating screening.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?


The story clearly states the cost of a CT scan. The story could have commented on the fact that insurance may not cover it as a screening test.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

Because the story focuses on the false positivity rate of CT scanning, it would not be necessary for it to also quantify the potential benefits.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?


The story is particularly strong in its description and quantification of potential harms from CT screening. Not only does the story quantify the percentage of false positive results, but it clearly and vividly describes what they mean to the patient.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The story does a good job of describing the current study, a large randomized trial from the National Cancer Institute.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


No disease-mongering in this story.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story could have been improved by quoting independent experts who could have provided more perspective on the importance of these findings.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The story compares CT scanning to conventional X-rays as a screening method.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


CT scanning to detect and/or diagnose lung cancer is clearly widely available.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


CT scanning to detect and/or diagnose lung cancer is not a new idea. Whether to use this technology to screen widely for lung cancer is a relatively new and highly controversial idea.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.

Total Score: 7 of 8 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.