Endoscopic ultrasound in lung cancer patients with a normal mediastinum on computed tomography

2004 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 1763-1768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B Wallace ◽  
James Ravenel ◽  
Mark I Block ◽  
Mostafa Fraig ◽  
Gerard Silvestri ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-25
Author(s):  
Khulood Al Riyami ◽  
Noor Al Nuaimi ◽  
Ruta Kliokyte ◽  
Stefan Voo ◽  
Andrew Thornton ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-246
Author(s):  
Hirohisa Kano ◽  
Toshio Kubo ◽  
Kiichiro Ninomiya ◽  
Eiki Ichihara ◽  
Kadoaki Ohashi ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 890-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Lu ◽  
Parag J. Parikh ◽  
Issam M. El Naqa ◽  
Michelle M. Nystrom ◽  
James P. Hubenschmidt ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 694-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akinori Ebihara ◽  
Hiroaki Nomori ◽  
Kenichi Watanabe ◽  
Takashi Ohtsuka ◽  
Tsuguo Naruke ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1610-1610
Author(s):  
Ping Yang ◽  
Kathleen J. Yost ◽  
Matthew M. Clark ◽  
Mariza de Andrade ◽  
Katherine M. Piderman ◽  
...  

1610 Background: Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans have reduced lung cancer deaths by 20.3% in high risk populations, although there is an unknown balance between the benefits and harms of LDCT scans as a screening tool. Our purpose was to compare health-related QOL issues among lung cancer patients who were initially detected by LDCT scans; 4 comparison groups included: lung cancer diagnosed by a screening chest X-ray, as an incidental finding from procedures taken for other medical reasons, or based on symptoms indicative for lung cancer and routinely diagnosed, and individuals who were LDCT screened but found no lung cancer (controls who participated in Mayo’s lung cancer CT screening trial). Methods: A total of 1,658 lung cancer patients (cared at Mayo Clinic) in the 4 groups (37, 151, 389, and 1081 respectively) and 488 controls were compared on following patient-reported outcomes (collected via validated tools): overall QOL, four symptoms (cough, pain, dyspnea, fatigue), mental/ physical/ emotional/ social/ spiritual QOL, and other concerns (e.g., family/ friends/ financial/ legal). A clinically significant deficit was defined as at least 10-points in difference (or <50 points) on a 0-100 scale. The rates of deficits were compared via Fisher’s exact tests and average QOL values via Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Overall QOL and individual symptoms were significantly worse (p<0.05) in all lung cancer groups than in controls, except for pain. LDCT-screened patients reported the greatest deficit among the 4 lung cancer groups in physical (41%), emotional (24%), social (38%), and spiritual QOL (24%); whereas chest X-ray detected patients had the least deficit in overall QOL (22%) and pain (32%). All 4 lung cancer groups experienced much worse fatigue (52-64%) than the controls (32%). Conclusions: Our preliminary results suggest that LDCT-screening detected lung cancer patients reported a different QOL profile from other lung cancer patients and non-lung cancer controls. The clinical course, smoking behavior, and QOL related health issues associated with LDCT screening for lung cancer warrant thorough investigation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document