Annals On Call Podcast · American College of Physicians

Real World Complications of Lung Cancer Screening

March 18, 2024·24 min·2 clips

Dr. Bob Centor reveals how lung cancer screening can lead to unnecessary surgical biopsies from false positives.

This episode examines the real-world complications and downstream procedures following lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Host Dr. Bob Centor is joined by authors Dr. Catherine Rendell and Dr. Neil Vachani from the University of Pennsylvania. They discuss their retrospective cohort study published in *Annals of Internal Medicine* on this topic. The study analyzed data from a large national commercial health plan, focusing on patients who underwent low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. A key finding was that 2.6% of screened patients received a false-positive result. Among all screened individuals, 1.3% underwent an invasive procedure following their scan. The research specifically tracked the occurrence of major complications from procedures like surgical lung biopsy. Dr. Rendell and Dr. Vachani detail the clinical pathway a patient follows after an abnormal screening CT. They explain how a positive scan often leads to further imaging, such as PET scans, and potentially to invasive diagnostic procedures. The data shows that for every 1,000 people screened, approximately 13 will have an invasive procedure. The study quantified the rate of major complications, like pneumothorax or hemorrhage, resulting from these interventions. A significant insight is that the real-world rate of invasive procedures appears higher than what was observed in the pivotal National Lung Screening Trial. The authors emphasize that screening programs must account for these downstream events in their risk-benefit calculations. They note that patient anxiety and the burden of additional testing are important non-quantifiable harms. The discussion highlights the challenge of communicating these potential pathways and risks effectively to patients considering screening. The tone is educational and clinically focused, grounded in data analysis and practical implementation. The style is a structured conversation between the host and researcher guests, clarifying study methods and implications. Listeners interested in preventive medicine, pulmonology, or primary care will find this episode highly relevant. Those seeking broad patient narratives or non-clinical health discussions might find the detailed statistical analysis less engaging.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Annals On Call Podcast