Misinformation Hampering Life-Saving Lung Cancer Screening, Medical Societies Warn

Misinformation about lung cancer screening may be deterring both patients and healthcare providers from utilizing a proven life-saving tool, according to a joint statement released by three leading U.S. medical organizations.

Despite strong evidence that low-dose CT scans reduce mortality among high-risk individuals, particularly long-term smokers, screening rates remain alarmingly low. Currently, fewer than 20 percent of eligible patients undergo the recommended screening procedure.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American College of Radiology have issued a unified warning about what they describe as persistent misreporting in peer-reviewed medical literature that distorts public and professional understanding of lung cancer screening’s safety profile.

“When the risks of screening are consistently overstated in medical journals, it creates unwarranted fear about overdiagnosis, unnecessary procedures, and radiation exposure,” said Dr. Heather I. Tupper, lead author of the joint statement. “This ultimately limits access to an intervention that could save thousands of lives annually.”

The medical societies identified three major methodological errors that have contributed to misperceptions about screening harms. First, multiple studies have exaggerated the rate of complications from follow-up imaging and procedures after initial screening. These inflated figures fail to account for improvements in clinical protocols and risk assessment tools implemented in recent years.

Second, the statement highlights widespread confusion between false positive rates and false discovery rates in screening literature. The National Lung Screening Trial reported a per-screen false positive rate of 26.6% at baseline, which declined in subsequent screening rounds. However, the societies found that more than 40 published papers erroneously cited a 96.4% false positive rate—a figure that actually represents the false discovery rate.

“This misrepresentation creates the impression that nearly all individuals undergoing screening face unnecessary follow-up testing, which simply isn’t true,” the statement notes. When current Lung-RADS criteria are applied to screening protocols, the positive screen rate drops substantially from 27.6% to just 10.6%.

The third concern involves overestimated projections of cancer risk from CT radiation exposure. A recent modeling study projected 103,000 new cancers from 93 million CT scans in 2023—representing a 255% increase compared to 2007 estimates. The medical societies argue these projections rely on inappropriate extrapolation from atomic bomb survivor data and employ assumptions that significantly overestimate long-term cancer risk from medical imaging.

Healthcare policy experts note that lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, claiming more than 130,000 lives annually. Early detection through screening could dramatically reduce this toll, particularly as treatment options for early-stage disease continue to improve.

Dr. Michael Boyer, oncologist and lung cancer specialist not involved in drafting the statement, emphasized the real-world implications: “When clinicians overestimate the harms of screening, they may be less likely to recommend it to eligible patients. Similarly, patients hearing exaggerated concerns may decline potentially life-saving early detection.”

The medical societies urge researchers, journal editors, and clinicians to apply more rigorous methodological standards when evaluating screening programs and to present risks in proper clinical context. They stress that accurate communication is essential to ensure lung cancer screening reaches those most likely to benefit.

“The evidence is clear that when implemented correctly, lung cancer screening reduces cancer-specific mortality and improves overall survival,” the statement concludes. “We cannot allow misinformation to undermine public trust in a procedure that saves lives.”

The joint statement appears in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery, with collaborating authors representing a cross-section of radiology, oncology, and thoracic surgery specialists from major academic medical centers across the country.