Cargando…

Lung cancer risk following previous abnormal chest radiographs: A 27‐year follow‐up study of a Chinese lung screening cohort

BACKGROUND: Chest radiograph (CXR) is still one of the most commonly used diagnostic tools for chest diseases. In this cohort study, we attempted to investigate the magnitude and temporal pattern of lung cancer risk following abnormal CXR findings. METHODS: We conducted an extended follow‐up of an o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fan, Yaguang, Su, Zheng, Wei, Mengna, Liang, Hao, Jiang, Yong, Li, Xuebing, Meng, Zhaowei, Wang, Ying, Wu, Heng, Song, Jinzhao, Qiao, Youlin, Zhou, Qinghua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8671899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34751511
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14213
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Chest radiograph (CXR) is still one of the most commonly used diagnostic tools for chest diseases. In this cohort study, we attempted to investigate the magnitude and temporal pattern of lung cancer risk following abnormal CXR findings. METHODS: We conducted an extended follow‐up of an occupational screening cohort in Yunnan, China. The associations between abnormal CXR results from baseline screening, the first four consecutive rounds of CXR screening, all previous rounds of screening and lung cancer risk were analyzed using time‐varying coefficient Cox regression model. The associations of lung cancer risk and previous CXR‐screening results according to histology were also considered. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the previous abnormal CXR findings on subsequent lung cancer risk. RESULTS: Abnormal CXR findings were associated with a significantly increased lung cancer risk. This relative hazard significantly decreased over time. Compared to negative screening results, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of baseline abnormal CXR results, and at least one abnormal result in the first four consecutive screening rounds during the first 5 years of follow‐up were 17.06 (95% CI: 11.74–24.79) and 13.77 (95%: 9.58–17.79), respectively. This significantly increased lung cancer risk continued over the next 5 years. These associations were stronger for persistent abnormal findings, and abnormal findings identified in recent screening rounds. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk was significant for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Although decreased over time, an increased lung cancer risk relative to abnormal CXR findings can continue for 10 years.