Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display

3765 - Elicitation of public preferences for lung cancer screening using three screening modalities


09 Oct 2016


Poster display


Maarten Ijzerman


Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 474-482. 10.1093/annonc/mdw387


M. Ijzerman1, H. Broekhuizen2, C. Groothuis-Oudshoorn2, R. Vliegenthart3, H. Groen4

Author affiliations

  • 1 Health Technology & Services Research, University of Twente, 7500 AE - Enschede/NL
  • 2 Health Technology & Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede/NL
  • 3 Radiology, University Hospital Groningen (UMCG), Groningen/NL
  • 4 Department Of Pulmonary Diseases, University Hospital Groningen (UMCG), 9700 RB - Groningen/NL


Abstract 3765


Since early detection of lung cancer can substantially increase overall cancer survival, there is increasing attention for lung cancer screening. This study aims to identify public preferences for lung cancer screening and to identify subgroups with distinct preferences.


The study was designed as a multi-attribute elicitation experiment using swing weighting. Attributes were selected using interviews with three clinicians and a panel session with eight representative respondents. Included attributes were sensitivity, specificity, radiation load, duration of screening procedure, time until results, mode of screening (CT scan, breath or blood test) and location of screening (GP or hospital). A hierarchical clustering method was used to identify subgroups in the preference weights.


In total, 1034 respondents from a representative Dutch panel aged between 40 and 80 completed the questionnaire. Respondents preferred breath analysis (45%) to blood samples (31%) or the CT-scanner (24%). 59% would prefer to be screened at their GP instead of the hospital. The three most important attributes were location of screening (0.18, SD = 0.16), mode of screening (0.17, SD = 0.14), and sensitivity (0.16, SD = 0.13). There was a distinction between preferences of subgroups focusing on organization of the screening service and preferences of subgroups focusing on clinical benefits of screening. Respondents with a low education where more likely to belong to subgroups found organization of the services most important, while respondents with a higher education were more likely to find clinical benefit important (P 


Our results indicate that that there is great potential for new screening technologies that can be used at a primary care facility, and that a one-size-fits-all approach for lung cancer screening is unlikely to provide the best value for the screening population.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Maarten IJzerman


University of Twente


All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings