What it measures
Low-dose CT looks for lung lesions that may represent early lung cancer. The Task Force found that LDCT has sufficient sensitivity and specificity to detect early-stage lung cancer, but not every nodule is cancer.
Annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer
Whether to start annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer.
Adults aged 50 to 80 with a 20 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.
SourcedModeledNo projected outcomes are generated on this page.
What this decision concerns
Lung cancer includes non-small cell and small cell cancers. Screening is aimed mainly at finding non-small cell lung cancer earlier, when disease is more amenable to treatment and prognosis is better.
The Task Force recommends annual LDCT screening for this group and concludes with moderate certainty that it has a moderate net benefit. The evidence review records benefits and harms that people weigh differently.
What the test can and cannot establish
Source-backed process context, not a personal next-step recommendation.
After an elevated or abnormal result
Abnormal findings are managed according to the finding and local protocol. Lung-RADS is designed to standardize which findings are suspicious and the suggested management of detected nodules; many false-positive findings can be resolved with serial imaging rather than an invasive procedure.
After a non-elevated or negative result
For people who remain eligible and choose screening, the Task Force recommends another low-dose CT every year. Screening stops once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery.
The options
Start annual LDCT screening
A low-dose CT scan each year, with a follow-up protocol if a nodule or other finding appears.
In the National Lung Screening Trial, three rounds of annual LDCT reduced lung cancer mortality compared with chest radiograph; 323 people needed to be screened to prevent 1 lung cancer death over 6.5 years of follow-up.
Applies to: High-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 in the NLST.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
In the NELSON trial, four rounds of LDCT at increasing intervals reduced lung cancer mortality compared with no screening; 130 people needed to be screened to prevent 1 lung cancer death over 10 years of follow-up.
Applies to: High-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 in NELSON.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
For every 1000 people screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures, and fewer than 1 person had a major complication.
Applies to: NLST participants. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly across studies, from a 0% to a 67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed.
Applies to: Across the trials reviewed.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
Incidental findings were common, with estimates ranging from 4.4% to 40.7% of people screened.
Applies to: Across the trials reviewed.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
Harms include increases in distress and, rarely, radiation-induced cancer.
Applies to: People screened with LDCT.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
Screening is annual, and is discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery.
Applies to: Adults aged 50 to 80 meeting the smoking-history criteria.
Do not start screening for now
No scan now. Eligibility and the choice can both be revisited.
The reduction in lung cancer mortality that LDCT produced in these trials is forgone by not screening.
Applies to: High-risk current and former smokers of the ages studied.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
The harms the review attributes to screening are false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, distress, and rarely radiation-induced cancer. Not screening avoids them.
Applies to: People eligible for LDCT screening.
SourcedAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF · 2021
The annual scan and any follow-up it triggers do not take place.
Applies to: Adults who would otherwise be screened annually.
Set against what matters to you
ModeledRead from what you saved on this device.
What sources report about what matters to you
Nothing yet. Mark what matters to you, and anything the sources say about it shows up here.
Pulls in two directions
Nothing so far pulls against anything else.
Still unknown
Nothing is marked as a priority yet, so nothing here is connected to what matters to you. The options and their sources are still readable below.
Not in the sources here.
Trial participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population, for example based on life expectancy.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF, 2021 statement
Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF, 2021 statement
Results were not pooled across trials because populations and screening protocols differed.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence review for the USPSTF, 2021 statement
What a screening program near you offers, its follow-up protocol, and its cost and coverage are not carried in this record.
Not in the sources here.
Worth asking
- Do I meet the eligibility this recommendation describes, and how was my pack-year history worked out?
- If a nodule is found, what is the follow-up protocol here, and what would it involve for me?
- How often does this program act on an incidental finding, and what would that mean for me?
- What changes the plan if I stop smoking, or if another health problem changes what surgery I could have?
How this measures up
Checked against IPDAS 5.0: 15 met, 1 partly met, 2 not met
Sets source-backed statements about named options against what the person said matters. Does not meet the development and evaluation standard a patient decision aid requires. Three further stages would be needed to call it a patient decision aid: essential-criteria appraisal, an independent bias appraisal, and an evaluation of what it changes for the people who use it. None has been done. 3 criteria below are not fully met.
Qualifying criteria
MetHealth conditionchecked automatically
A source-backed description of the health condition or event is recorded separately from the option comparison.
MetExplicit decisionchecked automatically
States the decision: "Whether to start annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer."
MetTarget audiencechecked automatically
Names who this is for: "Adults aged 50 to 80 with a 20 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years."
MetOptionschecked automatically
2 options, including an explicit wait-or-decline option.
MetBenefitschecked automatically
4 recorded statements read as supporting an option.
MetHarmschecked automatically
6 recorded statements read as burdening an option.
MetValues clarificationrecorded judgment
Screening benefit, invasive follow-up, overdiagnosis, and the annual commitment each route to a different priority the reader can choose to keep in view.
Bias reduction
Partly metBest available evidencechecked automatically
3 primary sources cited, each paraphrased closely. Dated currentness checks found no final newer edition of any source. That remains a negative currentness finding rather than proof that no update is underway.
Not metUser involvement in developmentrecorded judgment
No patient, caregiver, or clinician took part in developing this journey. No usability or comprehension testing has been run on it.
MetNeutral presentation of optionschecked automatically
Every option carries at least one statement in each direction, so no option is recorded as all upside or all downside.
MetComplete citationschecked automatically
3 sources, each with a full citation, a resolving identifier, a publication date, and the date and route it was read.
MetPublication or version datechecked automatically
Last reviewed 2026-09-18.
Not metUpdate policyrecorded judgment
Each journey records when it was last reviewed. A recheck cadence and triggers are proposed, and source recheck due dates are computed from them, but no owner has adopted the policy. This stays unmet until one does.
MetFunding disclosedrecorded judgment
Funding and editorial independence are stated at /independence.
Screening decisions
MetWhat the test measureschecked automatically
The journey carries a source-backed explanation of what the screening test measures and the limits of interpreting a result.
MetConsequences of a positive resultrecorded judgment
Records invasive follow-up procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and distress.
MetNext steps after either resultchecked automatically
The journey separately records source-backed follow-up context after an abnormal finding and after a non-abnormal result.
MetOverdiagnosis and false positivesrecorded judgment
Overdiagnosis is recorded as a harm, alongside incidental findings and invasive follow-up.
This checks the seven IPDAS 5.0 qualifying criteria, seven bias-reduction criteria, and four screening-specific criteria against what each journey holds. IPDAS 5.0 contains more than these. A criterion absent here has not been assessed and is not passed. Standard: IPDAS 5.0, published 2026-06-12. Assessment is by Values in Care, not by IPDAS or any outside reviewer.
Sources
SourcedUS Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325(10):962-970.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1117
Read 2026-09-11 from the PubMed record (structured abstract of the version of record).
Currentness check · 2026-09-13
No later Task Force recommendation statement on lung cancer screening is indexed in PubMed. A May 2026 study of screening eligibility describes the 2021 criteria as the current recommendation.
Method: PubMed title search for a later recommendation statement on the same topic, via the PubMed MCP connector.
Not covered: The Task Force's own site lists draft and in-progress topics and was not reachable from the environment where this PubMed-only check ran. A statement in draft would not appear in this search.
Jonas DE, Reuland DS, Reddy SM, et al. Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325(10):971-987.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.0377
Read 2026-09-11 from the PubMed record (structured abstract of the version of record).
Currentness check · 2026-09-13
No later evidence review for this Task Force topic is indexed in PubMed.
Method: PubMed title search for a later recommendation statement on the same topic, via the PubMed MCP connector.
Not covered: The Task Force's own site lists draft and in-progress topics and was not reachable from the environment where this PubMed-only check ran. A statement in draft would not appear in this search.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Lung Cancer: Screening. Final Recommendation Statement. March 9, 2021.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/lung-cancer-screening
Read 2026-09-18 from the USPSTF final recommendation statement (official web page).
Currentness check · 2026-09-18
The Task Force's official page continues to present the 2021 recommendation as its final lung-cancer screening recommendation; no final successor was identified on the checked page.
Method: Direct review of the USPSTF final recommendation page and, where present, the Task Force's in-progress update page.
Not covered: This check establishes what the publisher currently posts. It does not predict the timing or content of a future draft or final recommendation.
Each clinical statement above paraphrases one of these sources closely. Filing it under a priority, or reading it against priorities you saved, is a Values in Care editorial operation rather than a source finding.
Open Source Watch