scholarly journals Response to Safiri et al. “Comments on Potential Impact of Including Time to First Cigarette in Risk Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening”

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. e208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fangyi Gu ◽  
Li Cheung ◽  
Hormuzd Katki ◽  
Neil Caporaso
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 1646-1653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fangyi Gu ◽  
Li C. Cheung ◽  
Neal D. Freedman ◽  
Hormuzd A. Katki ◽  
Neil E. Caporaso

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hormuzd Katki ◽  
Martin Skarzynski ◽  
Li Cheung ◽  
Christine Berg ◽  
Anil Chaturvedi ◽  
...  

BJGP Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen20X101035
Author(s):  
Charikleia Margariti ◽  
Maria Kordowicz ◽  
Gillian Selman ◽  
Arjun Nair ◽  
Yvonne Akande ◽  
...  

BackgroundLung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to decrease mortality. Low lung cancer survival rates in the UK, driven primarily by late-stage presentation, provide the impetus for implementing screening. Nascent guidance on screening in the UK recommends primary care case-finding. However, the potential impact and acceptability on primary care, and the opportunistic utilisation of other case-finding routes, such as pharmacies, smoking cessation services, and respiratory clinics, have not been fully explored.AimTo explore healthcare professionals’ views and perspectives about lung cancer screening and their preparedness and willingness to be involved in its implementation.Design & settingA qualitative study was carried out with semi-structured interviews conducted with GPs, pharmacists, staff from smoking cessation services within Southwark and Lambeth in London, and staff from respiratory clinics in Guys’ and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London between April 2018 and December 2018.MethodSixteen participants were interviewed and the interview transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants described lung cancer screening as an important diagnostic tool for capturing lung cancer at an earlier stage and in increasing survivorship. However, the majority expressed a lack of awareness and understanding, uncertainty and concerns about the validity of screening, and the potential impact on their patients and workload.ConclusionStudy participants had mixed opinions about lung cancer screening and expressed their concerns about its implementation. Addressing these concerns by providing resources and effective and detailed guidelines for their use may lead to greater engagement and willingness to be involved in lung cancer screening.


2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp20X711449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charikleia Margariti ◽  
Maria Kordowicz ◽  
Gillian Selman ◽  
Arjun Nair ◽  
Yvonne Akande ◽  
...  

BackgroundLung cancer screening with low-dose CT has been shown to decrease mortality. Low lung cancer survival rates in the UK, driven primarily by late-stage presentation, provide the impetus for implementing screening. Nascent guidance on screening in the UK recommends primary care case-finding. However, the potential impact and acceptability on primary care, and the opportunistic utilisation of other case-finding routes such as pharmacies, smoking cessation services and respiratory clinics, have not been fully explored.AimTo explore healthcare professionals’ views and perspectives about lung cancer screening and their preparedness and willingness to be involved in its implementation.MethodA qualitative study was carried out with semi-structured interviews conducted with GPs, pharmacists and staff from smoking cessation services within Southwark and Lambeth and from respiratory clinics in Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust in London in 2018. Sixteen participants were interviewed, and the interview transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants described lung cancer screening as an important diagnostic tool for capturing lung cancer at an earlier stage and in increasing survivorship. However, the majority expressed a lack of awareness and understanding, uncertainty and concerns about the validity of screening, its misuse and the potential impact on their patients and workload.ConclusionStudy participants had mixed opinions about lung cancer screening and expressed their concerns about its implementation. Addressing these concerns by providing resources and effective and detailed guidelines for their use may lead to greater engagement and willingness to be involved in lung cancer screening.


2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-56
Author(s):  
Christopher R Gilbert ◽  
Alexander S Carlson ◽  
Candice L Wilshire ◽  
Ralph W Aye ◽  
Alexander S Farivar ◽  
...  

Objective The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated the benefits of lung cancer screening, but the potential high incidence of unnecessary invasive testing for ultimately benign radiologic findings causes concern. We aimed to review current biopsy patterns and outcomes in our community-based program, and retrospectively apply malignancy prediction models in a lung cancer screening population, to identify the potential impact these calculators could have on biopsy decisions. Methods Retrospective review of lung cancer-screening program participants from 2013 to 2016. Demographic, biopsy, and outcome data were collected. Malignancy risk calculators were retrospectively applied and results compared in patients with positive imaging findings. Results From 520 individuals enrolled in the screening program, pulmonary nodule(s) ≥6 mm were identified in 166, with biopsy in 30. Malignancy risk probabilities were significantly higher (Brock p < 0.00001; Mayo p < 0.00001) in those undergoing diagnostic sampling than those not undergoing sampling. However, there was no difference in the Brock ( p = 0.912) or Mayo ( p = 0.435) calculators when discriminating a final diagnosis of cancer from not cancer in those undergoing sampling. Conclusions In our screening program, 5.7% of individuals undergo invasive testing, comparable with the National Lung Screening Trial (6.1%). Both Brock and Mayo calculators perform well in indicating who may be at risk of malignancy, based on clinical and radiologic factors. However, in our invasive testing group, the Brock and Mayo calculators and Lung Cancer Screening Program clinical assessment all lacked clarity in distinguishing individuals who have a cancer from those with a benign abnormality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document