Teaching and criticism of lung cancer screening test

The pilot population study of lung cancer among (former) smokers, called 4-in-the-lung-run, is under fire. Despite the promising promises to reduce lung cancer deaths, experts strongly criticize the ethics and scientific basis of this research. Although routine population screening for cervical, breast and colon cancer has achieved good results, lung cancer screening appears to be more complicated and possibly less effective. Metro reports this.

The study, which was established to screen smokers (former) for early lung cancer, was proposed after the NELSON study, in which screening could save lives. But it seems that the truth is not as rosy as it was presented at first. Pulmonologist Willem Mali withdrew from the study after reading American studies that questioned the effectiveness of lung cancer screening. The results would not show a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality, but would instead lead to overdiagnosis and unnecessary fear among patients.

False positive results

One of the most important complaints is the high rate of false-positive results. Many people are needlessly told that they may have lung cancer, which causes anxiety and mental burden. According to John Broderson, who studies population studies, all screening programs are harmful to some extent. And if someone has lung cancer, it is difficult to know whether the person died from it or from a stroke or heart attack. Although the risk of death from lung cancer would decrease by 24 percent through screening, but according to Follow the Money this is only 6 percent. “That 24 percent is used to increase results,” says clinical epidemiologist Gerben ter Riet from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.

Conflict of interest due to links with Siemens

In addition to the scientific doubts, there are concerns about conflicts of interest. Siemens, the supplier of the medical equipment used for the research, plays a prominent role in the process. Critics point out that doctors such as Matthijs Oudkerk, who is closely involved in the research, have financial ties to Siemens. Equipment from this brand can therefore be used within the population pilot study. This raises questions about independence and independence.

Many question marks

Although the pilot population study on lung cancer seemed promising, criticism from scientists and ethicists shows that serious questions must be raised about the methodology, results and ethical implementation. According to various experts, this includes several hats that appear to have a conflict of interest and influence.

By: National Health Care Guidelines / Johanne Levinsky