Skip to content
Review

Lung cancer screening in occupational settings: a scoping review

Aug 2026 · Frontiers in Public Health · Vol 14 · 0 citations · 55 references
Medicine

TL;DR

Occupational settings present significant opportunities for early lung cancer detection among high-risk workers, while offering potential benefits for those with low or uncharacterized exposures, but the evidence base remains limited.

Abstract

Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. It is often asymptomatic until advanced stages, resulting in delayed diagnosis and poor survival. Screening enables early detection and reduces mortality. Multiple occupational and environmental exposures have been linked to lung cancer, and some guidelines recommend their inclusion in risk assessment. This review aims to map the existing evidence on lung cancer screening (LCS) in occupational settings. Methods This review followed JBI methodology and employed a three-step search strategy across six databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL (via EBSCO), ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies were those reporting on LCS conducted in any occupational setting, published in English or German between 2013 and November 2024. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion. Data were synthesized thematically, and findings were reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results Twenty-one studies from 12 countries were included, conducted across diverse occupational populations. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was used for screening in 18 studies (15 as a standalone modality, 3 combined with biomarkers, sputum cytology, or chest ultrasonography respectively), while 3 studies employed alternative approaches. Eligibility criteria varied substantially, and intervention durations ranged from 3 months to 13 years. Individual and combined recruitment strategies were identified, including emails, invitation letters, face-to-face interactions, direct outreach by department heads or supervisors, and referrals from primary care or specialty clinics. Thematic synthesis yielded five overarching themes: (1) occupational exposures as lung cancer risk factors and limitations of current LCS guidelines; (2) lung cancer burden across occupational groups; (3) benefits and performance of LDCT in occupational cohorts; (4) tools and multimodal strategies to enhance LDCT; and (5) implementation, participation, and program feasibility. Conclusion Occupational settings present significant opportunities for early lung cancer detection among high-risk workers, while offering potential benefits for those with low or uncharacterized exposures. However, the evidence base remains limited, with significant gaps in implementation protocols and reporting standards. Addressing these deficiencies requires robust prospective studies and standardized frameworks to ensure the translation of occupational LCS into a reproducible, scalable public health intervention. Systematic review registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UHS8D

View source

Similar papers

Review Open access Sep 2026

Lung Cancer Screening in High-Risk Populations: Current Evidence, Implementation Challenges, and Future Directions

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, yet the majority of cases are diagnosed at advanced stages when a cure is rarely achievable. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations reduces lung cancer mortality by 20–24% in randomised trials, but fewer than 20% of...

Arihant Surana, Riya Bhattacharya · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Questionnaire-Based Tools for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment: A Scoping Review

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. The implementation of screening programs has been shown to significantly reduce mortality. Individual risk stratification using structured tools may improve the efficiency of screening programs by directing resources to individuals...

Bruna de Oliveira Ascef, Elisa Camussi, Francesco Venturelli et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Incidence and mortality trends after introduction of lung cancer screening in a community-based healthcare system.

BACKGROUND Lung cancer screening (LCS) enables early cancer detection but raises concerns about overdiagnosis, particularly in community-based LCS settings where evidence remains limited. This study examined trends in lung cancer incidence and mortality following the introduction of LCS in a community-based setting and...

N. Carroll, A. Burnett-Hartman, K. Wain et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Interventions to promote the early detection of cancer in community pharmacies: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES Early detection and diagnosis of cancer is associated with greater treatment success and improved survival. Community pharmacies are often the first point of contact for patients with symptoms that could be due to cancer (e.g. persistent cough, rectal bleeding, dysphagia), and could contribute to earlier can...

Shereen Nabhani Gebara, N. Weir, Lisa Macleod et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Screening effectiveness and diagnostic gaps in early-onset colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

The global incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as colorectal cancer diagnosed before 50 years of age, continues to increase despite advances in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although several countries have lowered the recommended screening age to 45 years, uncertainty remains regarding whet...

E. Ataca, Deniz Çınaroğlu, M. Tarhan et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Structured triage of incidental findings in lung cancer screening: Outcomes from a UK programme.

BACKGROUND Low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening frequently identifies incidental findings (IFs). These have the potential to be beneficial or harmful to the participant and need to be managed effectively. We evaluated whether structured triage of IFs in a real-world screening programme led to meaningful clinical ac...

A. Burzic, D. Baldwin, T. McKeever et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.