18 research outputs found

    Lung Screening Benefits and Challenges: A Review of The Data and Outline for Implementation

    Get PDF
    Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all cancer-related deaths. Annual computed tomographic lung cancer screening (CTLS) detects lung cancer at earlier stages and reduces lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals. Many medical organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual CTLS in high-risk populations. However, fewer than 5% of individuals worldwide at high risk for lung cancer have undergone screening. In large part, this is owing to delayed implementation of CTLS in many countries throughout the world. Factors contributing to low uptake in countries with longstanding CTLS endorsement, such as the United States, include lack of patient and clinician awareness of current recommendations in favor of CTLS and clinician concerns about CTLS-related radiation exposure, false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and cost. This review of the literature serves to address these concerns by evaluating the potential risks and benefits of CTLS. Review of key components of a lung screening program, along with an updated shared decision aid, provides guidance for program development and optimization. Review of studies evaluating the population considered "high-risk" is included as this may affect future guidelines within the United States and other countries considering lung screening implementation

    A Retrospective Study Assessing the Predictive Performance of a Lung Cancer Screening Risk Prediction Model in a Clinical Lung Cancer Screening Program

    Get PDF
    Background: United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommendations for annual screening for lung cancer with low dose CT (LDCT) scans rely on age and smoking history to identify those at high risk for lung cancer. The Tammemagi et al. six year lung cancer risk prediction model, PLCOm2012, developed and validated in large lung cancer screening clinical trials, demonstrated good predictive performance in screening selection. However, the model has not been validated in clinical practice. Validating the model in clinical practice would increase confidence in its ability to provide information for shared decision making discussions in the near term and would potentially allow for selection of other high risk groups, not currently recommended to be screened, in the future. Methods: Retrospective evaluation of the predictive performance of the Tammemagi et al. six year lung cancer risk prediction model in the Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Lahey physician referred patients enrolled in the lung cancer screening program between January 1, 2012 and November 30, 2015 (n=2302). Predictor variable data were gathered from the program clinical data base and program participant clinic medical records. All patients met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Group 1 or Group 2 high-risk criteria. Results: The model six year mean risk for lung cancer was higher for participants with lung cancer, 4.56%, as compared to those without lung cancer, 3.55% (p=0.0265). Area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristics (ROC) was 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 – 0.69). The mean absolute difference between observed and predicted risk was 0.013 or less for the first 9 deciles.At the 1.51% predicted risk recommended screening threshold; sensitivity = 85.7%, specificity = 29.7%, and PPV = 3.7%. In sub-group analysis, for NCCN Group 2 (younger, lighter smoking history, no limit on time quit and one additional risk factor) the mean predicted risk for participants with lung cancer was 2.39% as compared to 1.83% for those without lung cancer but the difference was not statistically significant; p=0.2507. However, the incidence of lung cancer was the same for NCCN Group 2 as for the complete sample. NCCN Group 2 model AUC was 0.634 (95% CI 0.522 – 0.746), the sensitivity and specificity of the model at the recommended screening threshold were 64.7% and 56.0%, respectively and PPV was 4.2%. Conclusions: Lung cancer risk prediction model, PLCOm2012noEd, predictive performance in a clinical lung cancer screening program was adequate to help patients and their physicians assess individual risk of lung cancer relative to the recommended model risk screening threshold (1.51%) and to supplement USPSTF and CMS screening program entry criteria for shared decision making discussions. Model risk predictive capability for the NCCN Group 2 subgroup did not match actual screening program lung cancer results

    Analyzing the Time From Discovery to Definitive Surgical Therapy for Lung Cancer Based on Referral Patterns

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: Surgery for early stage non-small cell lung cancer can be curative. A delay from diagnosis to surgery can lead to increased mortality. Our objective was to determine if referring patients to specialists before a thoracic surgeon caused a delay in definitive treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who had surgery for non-small cell lung cancer by a single surgeon at our institution from 2013 to 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who saw a specialist before a thoracic surgeon and patients who were referred directly to a surgeon once the pulmonary nodule was identified on computed tomography (CT). The time from initial CT to resection was compared. Secondary analysis compared private insurance versus Medicare/Medicaid. Percentage of patients upstaged was compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups when comparing time from CT to surgery (79.88 vs. 79.90 d; P=0.58). There was a significant decrease in time from CT to surgery for patients with private insurance compared with Medicare/Medicaid patients (66.05 vs. 86.99 d; P=0.03) and fewer private insurance patients were upstaged (22.9% vs. 31.8%; P=0.32). More patients who saw a different specialist first were upstaged compared with patients sent directly to thoracic surgery (32.6% vs. 22.2%; P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing time from CT detection of a lung nodule to surgery, no significant difference was found between patients sent to nonthoracic specialists first and those referred directly to a thoracic surgeon. There was a significant decrease in time from CT to surgery for patients with private insurance compared with Medicare/Medicaid

    Fostering Patient- and Family-Centered Care in Radiology Practice

    No full text
    Patient- and family-centered care (PFCC) is “a model of providing care in which the patient and family are partners with the provider and care team”. With reimbursement linked to health care outcomes and patient satisfaction, radiology has an opportunity to add value to the health care system by fostering partnerships with patients and families

    Developing a Pan-European Technical Standard for a Comprehensive High-quality Lung Cancer CT Screening Program. An ERS Technical Standard.

    Get PDF
    UNLABELLED Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost effectiveness. This ERS Taskforce was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality lung cancer screening program. METHOD A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies (see below). Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee. RESULTS Ten topics were identified representing key components of a screening program. The action on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked taskforce (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). Fifty-three statements were produced and areas for further research identified. CONCLUSION This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high quality and effective program
    corecore