3 ms·
> I'd get a CT scan every year You would choose annual body CT even if outcomes-based evidence showed no benefit? Even among those at highest risk for lung ca
by kashunstva 4y ago
> I'd get a CT scan every year
You would choose annual body CT even if outcomes-based evidence showed no benefit?
Even among those at highest risk for lung carcinoma, studies of annual screening chest CT do not uniformly show improved disease-specific survival as compared to an unscreened but otherwise matched cohort.
- themantalope 4y agohttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1102873 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1102873 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762603/ What I found mind blowing when I first read these studies (particularly the second link) is that the positive-predictive value of the CT screen was only 3.8% for lung nodules that were 4mm or larger in size. Basically just means we find all kinds of lung abnormalities all the time that "could be cancer" but aren't. Keep in mind, that the screening criteria was people over age 65 who had a 30+ pack-year smoking history (1 pack-year = smoking 1 pack of cigarettes per day in one year), and had to have smoked within the last 15 years. I can also tell you from doing CT lung biopsies that it's not a procedure to take lightly. Lot of important structures in the chest.
- quasarj 4y agoAbsolutely. Those studies show no improved survival across cohorts. Not for individuals. My only chance of living is to know. That's worth it for me. I mean, plus I have extreme health anxiety, and I've had doctors say "nah you're too young, we don't need to test for that" and later it turned out I did have kidney failure at 35.