01-024 · EVIDENCE A · SOURCE-SENSITIVE

Heavy smokers should get a low-dose chest CT once a year

重度吸烟者每年做一次低剂量胸部 CT

Source cost

The test costs 200–400 yuan per session and takes just 10 minutes. You must also factor in follow-up tests after any false alarms, plus the anxiety that comes with waiting for results.

Source return

Eligible heavy smokers who get a low-dose CT once a year have a 20% lower risk of dying from lung cancer and a 6.7% lower overall risk of death compared to those who only get regular chest X-rays. The trade-offs are extra follow-up tests after any suspicious findings and the resulting worry during the waiting period.

Evidence grade

A

THE LOW-ROI DETOURSatire, not advice

Move “Heavy smokers should get a low-dose chest CT once a year” to Future Me's calendar

The excuse

I can spend longer deciding whether to start than the small action would take.

What feels good now

Today I keep a little money, a few minutes and avoid interrupting my default routine.

What the source says

The source summarizes the return this way: “Eligible heavy smokers who get a low-dose CT once a year have a 20% lower risk of dying from lung cancer and a 6.7% lower overall risk of death compared to those who only get regular chest X-rays. The trade-offs are extra follow-up tests after any suspicious findings and the resulting worry during the waiting period.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.

THE ENGLISH EDITION

Original recommendation and evidence

Source commit a994b6a0c905

24. Heavy smokers should get a low-dose chest CT once a year

Cost: The test costs 200–400 yuan per session and takes just 10 minutes. You must also factor in follow-up tests after any false alarms, plus the anxiety that comes with waiting for results.

In plain terms: Eligible heavy smokers who get a low-dose CT once a year have a 20% lower risk of dying from lung cancer and a 6.7% lower overall risk of death compared to those who only get regular chest X-rays. The trade-offs are extra follow-up tests after any suspicious findings and the resulting worry during the waiting period.

Benefit: The NLST trial in the U.S. enrolled 53,454 participants aged 55–74 with at least 30 pack-years of smoking history and who had quit smoking no more than 15 years prior. Those who underwent low-dose CT had a 20.0% relative reduction in lung cancer deaths versus those who only got chest X-rays. The 95% confidence interval is 6.8–26.7. Overall mortality dropped by 6.7% relative to controls, with a 95% CI of 1.2–13.6.

Evidence grade: A

Sources: National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011). Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873>

Notes: This recommendation applies only to high-risk smokers. In the same study, 24.2% of CT recipients showed suspicious findings, yet 96.4% of those cases turned out to be false positives. For non-smokers, undergoing this test offers no benefit and only adds unnecessary anxiety.

Read the complete Chinese source and notes

24. 重度吸烟者每年做一次低剂量胸部 CT

成本: 一次 200 到 400 元,10 分钟做完。另外要算上虚惊一场之后的复查,和那段时间的提心吊胆。

说人话: 符合条件的重度吸烟者每年做一次低剂量 CT,死于肺癌的概率比只拍胸片低 20%,总的死亡概率低 6.7%。代价是查出可疑结果后的复查,和那一段时间的提心吊胆。

收益: 美国 NLST 随机试验收了 53,454 人,都是 55 到 74 岁、吸烟史 30 包年以上、戒烟不超过 15 年的人。包年是算烟量的单位,每天一包抽一年算一包年。结果是这样。做低剂量 CT 的人比只拍胸片的人,肺癌死亡相对下降 20.0%。可信范围 95% CI 6.8 到 26.7。总死亡率相对下降 6.7%,可信范围 95% CI 1.2 到 13.6

证据等级: A

来源: National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011). Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873>

备注: 这条只适用于高危吸烟者。同一项试验里,做低剂量 CT 的人有 24.2% 查出可疑结果,这些人里 96.4% 是虚惊一场(假阳性)。不吸烟的人做这项检查,等于花钱买焦虑。

Author's scope notes: 这条只适用于高危吸烟者。同一项试验里,做低剂量 CT 的人有 24.2% 查出可疑结果,这些人里 96.4% 是虚惊一场(假阳性)。不吸烟的人做这项检查,等于花钱买焦虑。

YOUR PRIVATE LIST

Choose what to do with this idea

Original content by eternity4719 under CC BY 4.0. English translation is credited in the source notes. HowToLiveWorse adds a clearly labeled satirical response.

Full source and adaptation notes