Is the opportunity for Medicare recipients who are heavy smokers to receive yearly low-dose CT scans a boon or a problem? This New York Times analysis not only provides a little history about the recent Medicare decision to fund the procedure, which seeks to find lung cancer in its earlier stages, but also shares plenty of detail and context as to the likely benefits and harms of getting screened. Cost was the only one of our 10 criteria that wasn’t satisfactorily addressed. Excellent reporting on a complicated issue.
Among the illnesses caused by smoking, lung cancer is a big one. It is the number one cause of cancer death in the U.S. and most lung cancers occur in smokers. So short of stopping smoking, what can be done to decrease the risk of dying from lung cancer? Before the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the answer was nothing. This trial demonstrated that compared with a chest x-ray, a yearly low dose computed tomography (CT) scan for three years reduced the likelihood of dying from lung cancer by about 20%, or by 5 in 1000 people (0.5% absolute reduction). Depending on one’s perspective, a 20% relative reduction or 0.5% absolute reduction, may or may not be important. And that is the focus of this article. How do you educate individuals who are eligible for this test so they can make a personal choice that’s right for them? Traditionally, doctors have simply told patients what to do. “I think that screening for colon cancer with a colonoscopy is a good idea for you.” However, this article points out that in addition to a small potential for benefit, there is also a real potential for harm or at least inconvenience. Almost 1 in 3 will have an abnormality seen on the CT scan that will require special follow-up. Of those abnormalities, only 6 in 100 will actually turn out to be something serious enough to require a biopsy or treatment. So patients and doctors are going to need to find ways to communicate these potential risks and benefits and help individuals assess preferences and other health or life issues that may influence the choice to screen. How well we do this will determine whether translating the results of a research study done under strict controls by experienced investigators translates into the same benefits in the broader population.
The story describes the case of one patient who paid $95 out of pocket for a lung cancer screen in 2013. But while the story does attempt to at least provide some cost perspective with the coverage, we’d note that under the Affordable Care Act, approved preventive tests do not carry copayments, so the cost of the initial scan is not really an issue for eligible patients. And in any case, the real costs to individuals and society are not really addressed by the cost of one scan. The story notes high up that the number of Americans who would be eligible for Medicare-funded scans would be in the millions. So the cost to Medicare and private insurers to fund this program will be, well, gargantuan at that scale. There is the cost of the initial test, annual testing if negative, and potentially more testing if an abnormality is found. This is not going to be a cheap program.
The story does an admirable job of explaining the modest benefit of these scans. The story’s effort to explain the statistics in several ways, including the use of absolute numbers, could serve as a model for other journalists. Example: “In the national trial, those screened with chest X-rays had about a 1.7 percent chance of dying from lung cancer during the study period; in the CT scan group, it was about 1.4 percent. For every thousand people screened with a low-dose CT, three fewer died of lung cancer.”
Another way to express this benefit would be the number need to treat (NNT) — the number of patients screened to prevent one lung cancer death. In this case, the NNT appears to be around 1 in 400. This is considerably better than other screening programs such as breast or prostate cancer.
This story devotes considerable space to explaining the potential problems invoked by false positives, again with facile use of numbers. The one narrative offered in the story elaborates on this element by focusing on an elderly retiree whose scan unearths a “hot spot” on her lung that, after considerable angst and pain caused by diagnostic procedures, was found to contain no cancer.
Another harm that could have been added is that the screening x-ray involves radiation, which may cause cancer itself. Though the scan is “low dose”, it isn’t “no dose,” and we know that screening not only will prevent death from cancer, but it will in fact be the cause of some of the cancers.
The story references a large screening trial involving more than 53,000 smokers and former smokers. It could have provided the reader with more information about how the study was carried out — for instance, emphasizing that to achieve the benefit seen in the trial, you need a yearly CT scan until either you age out or, if you’ve stopped smoking, you reach 15 years since quitting. But the story contains plenty of context about the study, especially with respect to the types of patients enrolled and the harms observed in the study. It also noted that treatment for those found to have cancer “involved major medical centers with specialized radiologists and surgeons — the ideal setting” — suggesting that the same results may be difficult to achieve at less specialized centers. We’ll rule this Satisfactory.
In some ways, this story is an example of a way to avoid disease-mongering. Because any Medicare-approved procedure will, by definition, be carried out on elderly individuals, the story’s reflections on “competing mortality”—the tendency for older folk to be saddled with multiple chronic diseases—emphasizes the importance of situating lung cancer among the elderly in a larger matrix of health issues. Lung cancer is clearly an important disease, but, as one physician/researcher noted in the story, “If I find a teensy lung cancer in a 77-year-old with heart disease, I may not have done him any favor.”
The sources in this story are clearly identified, but no effort is made to articulate the presence—or absence—of conflicts of interest. However, a quick search of these individuals does not reveal any major conflicts, so we’ll rule this Satisfactory.
The single study discussed in this story—the National Lung Screening Trial—compared low-dose CT scans with more traditional X-ray diagnoses. But in reality, the comparison is between low- dose CT and not doing one at all. No one is recommending a regular x-ray of the chest.
The issue of interest here is whether low-dose CT scans are available for older, heavy smokers to screen for lung cancer. While this is satisfactorily addressed (it’s the main topic of the story), it isn’t entirely clear from the story if screening has actually begun or when it will. Programs to do the shared decision-making for Medicare patients haven’t been established and Medicare hasn’t yet released codes for billing for the initial visit where the issue is reviewed. It’s also unclear if commercial insurers are covering and for whom.
The story makes it clear that low-dose CT scans are now in use. What is novel here is a recent decision by Medicare to cover the cost of such scans for current or former heavy smokers who meet specific criteria.
We see no evidence that this analytical narrative relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (3)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Sam LaMonte
May 18, 2015 at 10:00 amYou fail to point out that smoking cessation is an aspect of this program. These patients are motivated to be assured they are clear of cancer. That is a great relief, and once they know they are clear, they may actually quit.
Gary Schwitzer
May 18, 2015 at 10:33 amSam,
Thanks for your note.
To whom were you referring when you wrote, “You fail to point out….” ? The New York Times published the story. Did you mean they failed to point this out?
We didn’t publish the story; we reviewed it.
Veluswamy
May 18, 2015 at 5:20 pmGood review of this complicated subject. V.P.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like