Screening for Lung Cancer with Computed Tomography: Systematic Reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
Authors: Pillay Jennifer , Rahman Sholeh , Klarenbach Scott , Reynolds Donna , Tessier Laure , Theriault Guylene , Persaud Nav , Finley Christian , Leighl Natasha , McInnes Matthew , Garritty Chantelle , Traversy Gregory , Tan Maria , Hartling Lisa 
Published: December 2023

Abstract
Purpose
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer.
Methods
We will update the review on benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems, and on patients’ values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modelling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto’s method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), and reach consensus.
Discussion
Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-up or additional data (e.g. harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review on values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms.
Systematic review registration:
PROSPERO CRD42022378858