You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2018 2022-07-28 10:23:42 |
2 update references and layout + 7 word(s) 2025 2022-07-29 08:36:31 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Raskin, J.;  Snoeckx, A.;  Janssens, A.;  Bondt, C.D.;  Wener, R.;  Wiel, M.V.D.;  Meerbeeck, J.P.V.;  Smits, E. Patients’ Sex in Lung Cancer Management. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25605 (accessed on 17 July 2025).
Raskin J,  Snoeckx A,  Janssens A,  Bondt CD,  Wener R,  Wiel MVD, et al. Patients’ Sex in Lung Cancer Management. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25605. Accessed July 17, 2025.
Raskin, Jo, Annemiek Snoeckx, Annelies Janssens, Charlotte De Bondt, Reinier Wener, Mick Van De Wiel, Jan P. Van Meerbeeck, Evelien Smits. "Patients’ Sex in Lung Cancer Management" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25605 (accessed July 17, 2025).
Raskin, J.,  Snoeckx, A.,  Janssens, A.,  Bondt, C.D.,  Wener, R.,  Wiel, M.V.D.,  Meerbeeck, J.P.V., & Smits, E. (2022, July 28). Patients’ Sex in Lung Cancer Management. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25605
Raskin, Jo, et al. "Patients’ Sex in Lung Cancer Management." Encyclopedia. Web. 28 July, 2022.
Patients’ Sex in Lung Cancer Management
Edit

Lung cancer is the third most common cancer in women, after breast and colon cancer, but by far the most lethal. Women have clearly caught up to men in the past decades, both in smoking and the resulting increase in lung cancer diagnoses. Anti-smoking campaigns have caused the incidence of lung cancer and the resulting mortality to decrease in men in most developed countries. For women, on the contrary, the incidence of lung cancer is rising, as is mortality.

gender lung cancer epidemiology screening

1. Sex and Cancer Immunity

1.1. The Immune System in Female Patients

The response to immunotherapy is influenced by many factors, some yet to be discovered, but the intrinsic characteristics of the tumor and of the tumor environment are key in provoking an immune response [1]. Sex differences are also applicable in the immune system. In general, women have stronger innate and adaptive immune responses than men, which is illustrated by the higher incidence of autoimmune diseases in women [2]. The immune system differs between males and females due to genetic differences and sex-specific levels of hormones (estradiol, progesterone, and androgens).
The X chromosome contains several immune-related genes with different inheritance patterns for women and men [3]. Nearly all immune cells express receptors for sex hormones that may influence the expression of several immune-related genes via responsive elements in promotor sites [4]. Progesterone, although dependent on its concentration, has anti-inflammatory effects. Androgens suppress immune cells. Estradiol improves cell-mediated and humoral immune response. Low estrogen levels tilt the T helper (Th) response towards Th1 differentiation, enhancing cellular immunity. High estrogen levels shift the equilibrium towards the Th2 phenotype [1].
Currently approved immunotherapies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are monoclonal antibodies against the PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and cemiplimab), the PD-L1 (atezolizumab and durvalumab), or CTLA-4 proteins (ipilimumab). PD-1 is a cell surface receptor present on pro B and T lymphocytes and plays a role in downregulating the immune response and self-tolerance when binding to its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. This aids in preventing autoimmunity, but cancer cells may upregulate PD-L1 to escape immune-mediated elimination. PD-1 expression is influenced by estrogen and prolactin, and therefore, is sex-dependent [5]. PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, on the contrary, should be less sensitive to the hormonal surroundings of the host. CTLA-4 is another protein receptor that is upregulated in activated T cells and responsible for suppressing the activity of other T cells [6].

1.2. Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Female Patients

The landmark KEYNOTE-024 trial compared pembrolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy in treatment-naive patients. With a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.95 (95% CI 0.56–1.62) in females and 0.54 (95% CI 0.36–0.79) in males, this trial did not show a significant survival benefit in female patients [7]. The similar EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial compared cemiplimab to chemotherapy with identical findings: in females, the hazard ratio was insignificant at 1.11 (95% CI 0.42–2.59) (males: 0.50; 95% CI 0.36–0.69) [8]. The KEYNOTE-042 trial allowed for the lower PD-L1 expression of ≥1%. Again, pembrolizumab was superior to chemotherapy in men, with an OS hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.53–0.88), but not in women (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.53–1.15; results for the PD-L ≥ 50% subgroup as well as for the entire population) [9]. Finally, the IMPOWER-110 trial also included PD-L1-positive patients (≥1%), comparing atezolizumab to chemotherapy. In the TC3/IC3 subgroup, the hazard ratio for women was 0.69 (95% CI 0.34–1.39), in contrast to the male ratio of 0.57 (95% CI 0.35–0.93) [10]. Median OS values according to sex were only reported in (the appendix of) this last trial: 23.1 months for males (gaining a median of 10.0 months) and 17.8 months for females (gaining a median of 3.7 months). These findings were observed by a recent meta-analysis [11].
In addition to this, the CHECKMATE-227 trial investigated an immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in PD-L1-positive patients (≥1%), with the chemo-free arm outperforming chemotherapy in males (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61–0.93), but not in females (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.69–1.21) [12]. It appears that women, unlike men, do not benefit (as much) from immunotherapy, whether in monotherapy or combined. In addition to fitness for chemotherapy and the need for a rapid response, biological sex might also be a criterion to consider when selecting first-line therapy in PD-L1-high NSCLC.
In patients with moderate (1–49%) and low (<1%) PD-L1 expression, immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy is the current standard of care. Here, the results of female and male subgroups are different. The two pembrolizumab trials showed an OS benefit in both males and females—females clearly more with non-squamous and males slightly more with squamous histology [13][14]. A second meta-analysis of immunotherapy, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, confirmed that women derived a higher benefit compared to men from the combination of pembrolizumab/chemotherapy versus chemotherapy or any other treatment option (all Pinteraction < 0.02) [15].
In the IMPOWER-130 and -131 trials, females had a greater benefit in both histologies [16][17]. In contrast, in the IMPOWER-150 trial, which added bevacizumab to the chemotherapy backbone, no real benefit was found in female patients [18]. Finally, in the CHECKMATE-9LA trial, no clear difference in HR was observed [19]. The proportion of female patients in all these trials was very heterogeneous: from 12% in the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial to >40% in the IMPOWER-130 and KEYNOTE-024 trials, and statistical considerations of subgroup analysis may apply.
The fact that women are at an advantage with the addition of chemotherapy, as opposed to treatment with single-agent immunotherapy, could be the result of a greater mutational burden and tumor antigenicity in men. The recent EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial demonstrated that even within the high PD-L1 category, there were differences in response according to the PD-L1 level [8], but there was no clear evidence that the average PD-L1 expression was lower in females [20].
Considering the adverse events of immunotherapy, the female sex has been reported to be associated with greater toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors when inhibiting both CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 [21][22][23].

2. EGFR and ALK Inhibition in Females

Cancer in never-smokers is more common in females; in general, adenocarcinoma histology (NSCLC) is detected [24]. Often, an oncogenic driver is identified in these patients. Mutations in the epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) are the most common driver in never-smokers and are more often found in women (odds ratio of 2.7; 95% CI 2.5–2.9) [25], in addition to Asians and Caucasians and those with adenocarcinoma histology [26]. For this reason, women are more often treated with targeted therapies and seem to benefit more compared to men in EGFR-mutated lung cancer. This is not the case in lung cancer with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion, where survival data are comparable between men and women [27].

3. Sex and Lung Cancer Screening

3.1. Benefits from Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) in Female Patients

Although LCS trials were not specifically designed for women, LCS trials have revealed differences in lung cancer-specific mortality, LCS being far more beneficial in women than in men. Three randomized lung cancer screening trials have stratified the outcome data by gender: NLST, LUSI, and NELSON.
In the North American National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the rate ratio for mortality from lung cancer among female participants in the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) group, as compared to those in the chest-radiography group, was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.96) for a follow-up period of 12.3 years [28]. The German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial (LUSI) showed a significant benefit with respect to lung cancer mortality in the small subgroup of women who were invited to undergo screening (HR 0.31, 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.96) [29]. The final publication of the Dutch–Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON) mainly focused on the results of men due to the low number of women involved in the trial. Although not statistically significant, the data on the small subset of women showed more favorable effects of LCS for women than for men, with a rate ratio for death from lung cancer of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.14) at 10 years of follow-up. The magnitude of lung cancer-specific mortality reduction in women was even greater at 7, 8, and 9 years from baseline [30].
A meta-analysis by Hoffman et al. [31] revealed that women benefitted substantially more from screening, with a 31% relative risk reduction in lung cancer mortality compared to 14% in men. Risk reductions were statistically not significant (p = 0.11). As previously mentioned, women were underrepresented in these LCS trials, so analyses for women were likely underpowered.
The inclusion criteria for LCS take into account the number of pack-years reflecting the severity of smoking history. In general, women accumulate fewer pack-years than men, resulting in differences in eligibility for LCS. Modeling studies have shown that expanding eligibility to include ever-smokers with less than 30 pack-years of exposure (20–29 pack-years) would not only increase the proportion of lung cancer deaths prevented by screening but would also reduce disparities in eligibility by sex [32].

3.2. Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Female Patients

Using low-dose CT, LCS is performed at radiation doses much lower than doses used in clinical practice for diagnostic chest CT imaging. Despite the lower radiation dose, radiation remains one of the harms associated with LCS. Researcher's knowledge from long-term studies on the impact of these levels of radiation exposure on cancer risk is very limited.
There is an interaction between radiation and smoking, with cancer risk from radiation generally being higher in the target population of smokers and former smokers. In addition to smoking and age, sex plays a role in the estimated risks of lung cancer associated with radiation. Excess relative risk differs between men and women and is higher in women than in men. Brenner et al. calculated the risks for yearly LDCT lung cancer screening: yearly screening would result in a 5% increase in the risk of lung cancer in women. In men, this increased risk would only be 1.5% [33]. The precise mechanisms underlying the sex differences in radiation-induced cancers remain unknown. The roles of hormonal regulation, genetic risks, and X-linked factors still need to be determined [34][35].
Rampinelli et al. retrospectively investigated the cumulative radiation exposure and lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence associated with LDCT from a 10-year lung cancer screening program. They showed that the lifetime attributable risk of lung cancer was estimated to be about four times greater for women aged 50–54 years than for men aged 65 and older. The risk for other major cancers is up to three times greater. Both the increased radiosensitivity of women and the risk of breast cancer associated with chest imaging are postulated to be the cause of this difference [36].
Overdiagnosis is another harm in LCS. Cancer overdiagnosis is the detection of asymptomatic cancers that would never have caused medical problems or harm during the patient’s lifespan because of death from other causes [37]. In the era of LCS, it is defined as screen-detected cancer that would not have become symptomatic during a person’s lifetime. Blom et al. estimated overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening using the cumulative excess-incidence approach. With this approach, the difference in cumulative incidence between a screened group and a matched control group is attributed to overdiagnosis. Overall, the percentage of overdiagnosis of screen-detected cancers was higher in women (ranging from 5.7% in the 1990 cohort to 11.2% in the 1950 cohort) than in men (ranging from 61% in the 1990 cohort to 9.8% in the 1950 cohort) in all cohorts except the 1990 cohort. An explanation of this overdiagnosis may be related to the predominant slower-growing adenocarcinoma histology in women. The longer the preclinical duration of the disease, the higher the likelihood of overdiagnosis [38].

3.3. Eligibility and Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening in Female Patients

Lung cancer screening targets high-risk participants, with smoking history being the most important risk factor. Smoking habits vary between sexes, with sex differences also varying between countries [39]. Differences in current smoking habits will impact trends in lung cancer incidence in the upcoming decades. Currently, most screening programs are ‘one-size-fits-all’, with no different eligibility criteria for women and men. The risk of disease depends, however, on many individual factors, including sex and age.
A comparative simulation modeling study investigating seven selected risk factor-based screening scenarios showed a lower percentage of eligibility for women in all scenarios. In contrast, for all except one scenario, the percentage of mortality reduction was higher in women. The number of people needed to (ever) screen to prevent one lung cancer death (NNS) was lower for women compared to men for all scenarios. Due to radiation sensitivity in women (as discussed previously), the number of radiation-related lung cancer deaths was higher in women than in men for all seven scenarios [32]. Lung cancer tends to be diagnosed in women at a younger age, an aspect that is not taken into account in the selection criteria for LCS [40].

References

  1. Irelli, A.; Sirufo, M.M.; D’Ugo, C.; Ginaldi, L.; De Martinis, M. Sex and Gender Influences on Cancer Immunotherapy Response. Biomedicines 2020, 8, 232.
  2. Klein, S.L.; Flanagan, K.L. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2016, 16, 626–638.
  3. Pinheiro, I.; Dejager, L.; Libert, C. X-chromosome-located microRNAs in immunity: Might they explain male/female differences? The X chromosome-genomic context may affect X-located miRNAs and downstream signaling, thereby contributing to the enhanced immune response of females. Bioessays 2011, 33, 791–802.
  4. Bianchi, I.; Lleo, A.; Gershwin, M.E.; Invernizzi, P. The X chromosome and immune associated genes. J. Autoimmun. 2011, 38, J187–J192.
  5. Nosrati, A.; Tsai, K.K.; Goldinger, S.M.; Tumeh, P.; Grimes, B.; Loo, K.; Algazi, A.P.; Nguyen-Kim, T.D.; Levesque, M.; Dummer, R.; et al. Evaluation of clinicopathological factors in PD-1 response: Derivation and valida-tion of a prediction scale for response to PD-1 monotherapy. Br. J. Cancer 2017, 116, 1141–1147.
  6. Buchbinder, E.I.; Desai, A. CTLA-4 and PD-1 Pathways: Similarities, Differences, and Implications of Their Inhibition. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 39, 98–106.
  7. Reck, M.; Rodríguez–Abreu, D.; Robinson, A.G.; Hui, R.; Csőszi, T.; Fülöp, A.; Gottfried, M.; Peled, N.; Tafreshi, A.; Cuffe, S.; et al. Updated Analysis of KEYNOTE-024: Pembrolizumab Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer With PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score of 50% or Greater. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 537–546.
  8. Sezer, A.; Kilickap, S.; Gümüş, M.; Bondarenko, I.; Özgüroğlu, M.; Gogishvili, M.; Turk, H.M.; Cicin, I.; Bentsion, D.; Gladkov, O.; et al. Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: A multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2021, 397, 592–604.
  9. Mok, T.S.K.; Wu, Y.-L.; Kudaba, I.; Kowalski, D.M.; Cho, B.C.; Turna, H.Z.; Castro, G., Jr.; Srimuninnimit, V.; Laktionov, K.K.; Bondarenko, I.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): A randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019, 393, 1819–1830.
  10. Herbst, R.S.; Giaccone, G.; de Marinis, F.; Reinmuth, N.; Vergnenegre, A.; Barrios, C.H.; Morise, M.; Felip, E.; Andric, Z.; Geater, S.; et al. Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of PD-L1–Selected Patients with NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1328–1339.
  11. Conforti, F.; Pala, L.; Pagan, E.; Corti, C.; Bagnardi, V.; Queirolo, P.; Catania, C.; De Pas, T.; Giaccone, G. Sex-based differences in response to anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer expressing high PD-L1 levels. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. ESMO Open 2021, 6, 100251.
  12. Hellmann, M.D.; Paz-Ares, L.; Bernabe Caro, R.; Zurawski, B.; Kim, S.-W.; Carcereny Costa, E.; Park, K.; Alexandru, A.; Lupinacci, L.; de la Mora Jimenez, E.; et al. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 2020–2031.
  13. Gadgeel, S.; Rodríguez-Abreu, D.; Speranza, G.; Esteban, E.; Felip, E.; Dómine, M.; Hui, R.; Hochmair, M.J.; Clingan, P.; Powell, S.F.; et al. Updated Analysis From KEYNOTE-189: Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Pemetrexed and Platinum for Previously Untreated Metastatic Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 1505–1517.
  14. Paz-Ares, L.; Vicente, D.; Tafreshi, A.; Robinson, A.; Parra, H.S.; Mazières, J.; Hermes, B.; Cicin, I.; Medgyasszay, B.; Rodríguez-Cid, J.; et al. A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Squamous NSCLC: Protocol-Specified Final Analysis of KEYNOTE-J. Thorac. Oncol. 2020, 15, 1657–1669.
  15. Dafni, U.; Tsourti, Z.; Vervita, K.; Peters, S. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for advanced non-small lung cancer. A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lung Cancer 2019, 134, 127–140.
  16. West, H.; McCleod, M.; Hussein, M.; Morabito, A.; Rittmeyer, A.; Conter, H.J.; Kopp, H.G.; Daniel, D.; McCune, S.; Mekhail, T.; et al. Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpow-er130): A multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 924–937.
  17. Jotte, R.; Cappuzzo, F.; Vynnychenko, I.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Rodríguez-Abreu, D.; Hussein, M.; Soo, R.; Conter, H.J.; Kozuki, T.; Huang, K.-C.; et al. Atezolizumab in Combination with Carboplatin and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Squamous NSCLC (IMpower131): Results From a Randomized Phase III Trial. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2020, 15, 1351–1360.
  18. Reck, M.; Shankar, G.; Lee, A.; Coleman, S.; McCleland, M.; Papadimitrakopoulou, V.A.; Socinski, M.A.; Sandler, A. Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with EGFR mutations. Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 2019, 14, 125–136.
  19. Paz-Ares, L.; Ciuleanu, T.-E.; Cobo, M.; Schenker, M.; Zurawski, B.; Menezes, J.; Richardet, E.; Bennouna, J.; Felip, E.; Juan-Vidal, O.; et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): An international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 198–211.
  20. Pan, Z.K.; Ye, F.; Wu, X.; An, H.X.; Wu, J.X. Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of programmed cell death ligand1 (PD-L1) ex-pression in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Dis. 2015, 7, 462–470.
  21. Valpione, S.; Pasquali, S.; Campana, L.G.; Piccin, L.; Mocellin, S.; Pigozzo, J.; Chiarion-Sileni, V. Sex and interleukin-6 are prognostic factors for autoimmune toxicity following treatment with anti-CTLA4 blockade. J. Transl. Med. 2018, 16, 194.
  22. Klein, S.L.; Morgan, R. The impact of sex and gender on immunotherapy outcomes. Biol. Sex Differ. 2020, 11, 24.
  23. Unger, J.M.; Vaidya, R.; Albain, K.S.; LeBlanc, M.; Minasian, L.M.; Gotay, C.C.; Henry, N.L.; Fisch, M.J.; Lee, S.M.; Blanke, C.D.; et al. Sex Differences in Risk of Severe Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Immunotherapy, Targeted Therapy, or Chemotherapy in Cancer Clinical Trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 40, 1474–1486.
  24. Risch, H.A.; Howe, G.R.; Jain, M.; Burch, J.D.; Holowaty, E.J.; Miller, A.B. Are female smokers at higher risk for lung cancer than male smokers? A case-control analysis by histological type. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1993, 138, 281–293.
  25. Clayton, J.A. Studying both sexes: A guiding principle for biomedicine. FASEB J. 2015, 30, 519–524.
  26. Zhang, Y.L.; Yuan, J.Q.; Wang, K.F.; Fu, X.H.; Han, X.R.; Threapleton, D.; Yang, Z.Y.; Mao, C.; Tang, J.L. The prevalence of EGFR mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A sys-tematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 78985–78993.
  27. Pinto, J.A.; Vallejos, C.S.; Raez, L.E.; Mas, L.A.; Ruiz, R.; Torres-Roman, J.S.; Morante, Z.; Araujo, J.M.; Gómez, H.L.; Aguilar, A.; et al. Gender and outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer: An old prognostic variable comes back for targeted therapy and immunotherapy? ESMO Open 2018, 3, e000344.
  28. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019, 14, 1732–1742.
  29. Becker, N.; Motsch, E.; Trotter, A.; Heussel, C.P.; Dienemann, H.; Schnabel, P.A.; Kauczor, H.U.; Maldonado, S.G.; Miller, A.B.; Kaaks, R.; et al. Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-Results from the ran-domized German LUSI trial. Int. J. Cancer 2020, 146, 1503–1513.
  30. de Koning, H.J.; van der Aalst, C.M.; de Jong, P.A.; Scholten, E.T.; Nackaerts, K.; Heuvelmans, M.A.; Lammers, J.W.; Weenink, C.; Yousaf-Khan, U.; Horeweg, N.; et al. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Ran-domized Trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 503–513.
  31. Hoffman, R.M.; Atallah, R.P.; Struble, R.D.; Badgett, R.G. Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: A Meta-Analysis. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2020, 35, 3015–3025.
  32. Meza, R.; Jeon, J.; Toumazis, I.; Haaf, K.T.; Cao, P.; Bastani, M.; Han, S.S.; Blom, E.F.; Jonas, D.; Feuer, E.J.; et al. Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Collaborative Modeling Study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021, 325, 988–997.
  33. Brenner, D.J. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology 2004, 231, 440–445.
  34. Schmitz-Feuerhake, I.; Busby, C.; Pflugbeil, S. Genetic radiation risks: A neglected topic in the low dose debate. Environ. Health Toxicol. 2016, 31, e2016001.
  35. Narendran, N.; Luzhna, L.; Kovalchuk, O. Sex Difference of Radiation Response in Occupational and Accidental Exposure. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 260.
  36. Rampinelli, C.; De Marco, P.; Origgi, D.; Maisonneuve, P.; Casiraghi, M.; Veronesi, G.; Spaggiari, L.; Bellomi, M. Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: Secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis. BMJ 2017, 356, j347.
  37. Brodersen, J.; Schwartz, L.M.; Heneghan, C.; O’Sullivan, J.W.; Aronson, J.K.; Woloshin, S. Overdiagnosis: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ Evid.-Based Med. 2018, 23, 1–3.
  38. Blom, E.F.; Haaf, K.T.; de Koning, H.J. Trends in lung cancer risk and screening eligibility affect overdiagnosis estimates. Lung Cancer 2019, 139, 200–206.
  39. Brenner, H.; Krilaviciute, A. Commonly Applied Selection Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening May Have Strongly Varying Diagnostic Performance in Different Countries. Cancers 2020, 12, 3012.
  40. Radzikowska, E.; Głaz, P.; Roszkowski, K. Lung cancer in women: Age, smoking, histology, performance status, stage, initial treatment and survival. Population-based study of 20 561 cases. Ann. Oncol. 2002, 13, 1087–1093.
More
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Oncology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , , , , , ,
View Times: 435
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 29 Jul 2022
1000/1000
Hot Most Recent
Academic Video Service