Longevity & AgingPress Release

Only 1 in 4 Eligible Adults Gets Lung Cancer Screening Despite Life-Saving Potential

Lung cancer screening rates hit just 24.5% in 2024 — far below other cancer screenings. Here's what's driving the gap and who's most at risk.

Wednesday, April 29, 2026 0 views
Published in MedPage Today
Article visualization: Only 1 in 4 Eligible Adults Gets Lung Cancer Screening Despite Life-Saving Potential

Summary

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT remains dangerously underused in the U.S., with only about one in four eligible adults up to date in 2024. A new study using national survey data found that while screening rates improved by 6 percentage points since 2022, they still lag far behind colorectal (67%), cervical (75%), and breast cancer (80%) screening rates. Disparities persist across age, race, ethnicity, and insurance type. Notably, current smokers — the highest-risk group — are screened less often than former smokers. Researchers and editors in JAMA Internal Medicine emphasize that structural barriers, not just individual choices, are blocking access to this potentially life-saving intervention for millions of high-risk adults.

Detailed Summary

Lung cancer is one of the deadliest cancers, yet a new study reveals that most eligible Americans are skipping a screening test that could catch it early enough to save their lives. Published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the research analyzed 2024 national survey data to assess how many high-risk adults are keeping up with annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening — and the results are sobering.

Only 24.49% of adults who met U.S. Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria — current or recent smokers aged 50–80 with a 20-plus pack-year history — were up to date on screening in 2024. That's an improvement of 6 percentage points over 2022, but it pales against screening rates for colorectal cancer (67.4%), cervical cancer (75.4%), and breast cancer (80%). A decade after the first USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening, uptake remains critically low.

Disparities are stark. Screening rates were lowest among the youngest eligible adults (ages 50–54, at just 11.3%) and rose with age, reaching 31.2% among those 75–79. People with military-related insurance or Medicare were more likely to be screened than those with private insurance, while the uninsured fared worst. Racial and ethnic gaps also persist, though the study sample was 78% white.

A troubling paradox emerged: current smokers — who face the highest lung cancer risk — are screened less frequently than former smokers. Researchers argue this underscores the need to integrate smoking cessation programs directly with screening outreach, rather than treating them as separate interventions.

The study's authors and UCSF editors agree that progress is real but insufficient. Structural barriers — including lack of awareness, limited access, and insurance gaps — continue to block high-risk individuals from a test that can detect lung cancer at a treatable stage. Expanding targeted outreach and policy support is urgently needed.

Key Findings

  • Only 24.5% of eligible high-risk adults completed lung cancer screening in 2024, up 6 points from 2022.
  • Lung cancer screening rates trail colorectal (67%), cervical (75%), and breast cancer (80%) screening significantly.
  • Current smokers are screened less often than former smokers, despite facing higher lung cancer risk.
  • Uninsured adults have the lowest screening rates; military and Medicare coverage correlate with higher uptake.
  • Screening rates among adults aged 50–54 are critically low at just 11.3%, suggesting early outreach is failing.

Methodology

This is a news report summarizing a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, a high-credibility peer-reviewed journal. The underlying study used cross-sectional data from the 2024 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a large, nationally representative population survey. Evidence is based on self-reported screening behavior, which introduces potential recall bias.

Study Limitations

Screening data is self-reported, which may overestimate or underestimate actual rates due to recall error. The article excerpt is truncated, so full subgroup data — particularly on race and ethnicity breakdowns — could not be fully assessed. Cross-sectional design limits causal inference about why disparities exist or what interventions would be most effective.

Enjoyed this summary?

Get the latest longevity research delivered to your inbox every week.