Skip to main content

Integrating Cardiovascular Screening in Lung Cancer Screening

Journal
The British journal of radiology (Q1)
Published
17 August 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Mohammad Mozafary, Maryam Rezaeifar, Morteza Naghavi, Ella A Kazerooni, Arthur E Stillman, Paolo Raggi
PMID
42608820
DOI
10.1093/bjr/tqag189

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

Cardiovascular risk assessment is a natural extension of lung cancer screening (LCS) because individuals eligible for low-dose computed tomography often carry a high burden of cardiovascular risk, and cardiovascular disease remains a major competing cause of morbidity and mortality. The same examination can provide clinically relevant cardiovascular information, particularly through coronary artery calcium (CAC) assessment, without additional imaging, radiation exposure, or patient burden. Visual, semi-quantitative, and automated approaches support the prognostic value of CAC detected on non-gated chest computed tomography. No prospective outcome trial has yet shown that intervention on CAC detected during LCS reduces events. However, a long-term follow-up analysis of a randomized LCS trial found that CAC reporting was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, likely reflecting improved risk recognition and greater use of preventive care. Implementation of simultaneous LCS and CAC screening should therefore be pragmatic, with standardized reporting, clear preventive care pathways, and prospective evaluation of treatment initiation, adherence, outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and potential unintended consequences. Artificial intelligence may help standardize CAC assessment, extract cardiovascular phenotypes beyond conventional scoring, and support integrated thoracic and cardiovascular prevention.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.