Erratum to inequivalence of non-aggressiveness in clinically diagnosed lung cancers and overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening trials
Erratum

Erratum to inequivalence of non-aggressiveness in clinically diagnosed lung cancers and overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening trials

Jerome M. Reich1, Jong S. Kim2

1Thoracic Oncology Program, Earle A Chiles Research Institute, Portland, OR, USA; 2Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Portland State University, OR, USA

Correspondence to: Jerome M. Reich, MD, FCCP. 7400 SW Barnes Rd. A242, Portland, OR 97225-7007, USA. Email: Reichje@isp.com.

doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.142


Erratum to: J Thorac Dis 2018;10:1230-2


Inequivalence of non-aggressiveness in clinically diagnosed lung cancers and overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening trials

Since the publication of the article that appeared on pages 1230–1232, Vol 10, No 3 (1) (March 2018) issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease, additional follow-up of the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial has come to my attention.

The contents and related references were originally showed as:

12. Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Ashraf H, et al. CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease. The randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: status after five annual screening rounds with low-dose CT. Thorax 2012;67:296-301. [Crossref] [PubMed]

13. Pastorino U, Rossi M, Rosato V, et al. Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur J Cancer Prev 2012;21:308-315. [Crossref] [PubMed]

14. Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, et al. Long-Term Follow-up Results of the DANTE Trial, a Randomized Study of Lung Cancer Screening with Spiral Computed Tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;191:1166-1175. [Crossref] [PubMed]

“(IV) OD, measured as the excess cancers in screened vs. control cohorts after completion of follow-up, will be far higher in CT than in CR trials. In the large CR trials, the excess was 22–24% (11); in the NLST (vs. CR controls) it was 18% (5). The sum of the excess in CR vs. unscreened plus the CT vs. CR controls, 23% + (≥18%) ≥41%. In the three reporting European trials of CT vs. unscreened controls, the pooled excess was 48% (12-14).

The datum of 48% should be updated as 42% and reference 12 should be changed. The updated information is as follows:

12. Wille MM, Dirksen A, Haseem A, et al. Results of the randomized danish lung cancer screening trial with focus on high-risk profiling. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;193:542-561. [Crossref] [PubMed]

13. Pastorino U, Rossi M, Rosato V, et al. Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur J Cancer Prev 2012;21:308-315. [Crossref] [PubMed]

14. Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, et al. Long-Term Follow-up Results of the DANTE Trial, a Randomized Study of Lung Cancer Screening with Spiral Computed Tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;191:1166-1175. [Crossref] [PubMed]

“(IV) OD, measured as the excess cancers in screened vs. control cohorts after completion of follow-up, will be far higher in CT than in CR trials. In the large CR trials, the excess was 22–24% (11); in the NLST (vs. CR controls) it was 18% (5). The sum of the excess in CR vs. unscreened plus the CT vs. CR controls, 23% + (≥18%) ≥41%. In the three reporting European trials of CT vs. unscreened controls, the pooled excess was 42% (12-14).

All authors agree to the erratum of the paper. We apologize for the inconvenience caused.


References

  1. Reich JM, Kim JS. Inequivalence of non-aggressiveness in clinically diagnosed lung cancers and overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening trials. J Thorac Dis 2018;10:1230-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Reich JM, Kim JS. Erratum to inequivalence of non-aggressiveness in clinically diagnosed lung cancers and overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening trials. J Thorac Dis 2018;10(6):E508-E509. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.142