scholarly journals Imaging Center Administrators Report a Lack of Physician Champions and Resources for Follow-Up as Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in a Community-Based Healthcare Network

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.E. Buehler ◽  
C.L. Wilshire ◽  
C.R. Gilbert ◽  
J.A. Gorden
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Healthcare Network ◽  
Imaging Center

scholarly journals P2.11-21 Factors Predicting Attrition in Community-Based Healthcare Network Lung Cancer Screening Programs

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. S786-S787
Author(s):  
K. Spiegel ◽  
J. Rayburn ◽  
C. Wilshire ◽  
E. Rauch ◽  
J. Handy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Healthcare Network

Community-based lung cancer screening program: A five-year comprehensive review.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13080-e13080
Author(s):  
Ari Hakimian ◽  
Axel Joob ◽  
Jennifer Aversano ◽  
Michael Vercillo ◽  
Michael Oconnor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Cancer Screening Program ◽  
History Of ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening Program

e13080 Background: Low-dose chest CT for lung cancer screening has been shown to have a significant impact on the early diagnosis of lung cancer. Initial trials have shown an approximate 20% decrease in overall lung cancer mortality (NLST, 2011). This study incorporates all patients who were evaluated by the Center for Thoracic Disease in a community-based lung cancer screening program from 2013 to 2018. Over the course of the study, thoracic surgeons have evaluated these patients with subsequent interval-based scans to monitor the progression of suspicious nodules. Methods: Eligibility criteria for the program included patients within the age range of 55-80, with a > 30 pack year smoking history, and that were current smokers or quit tobacco less than 15 years ago. Individuals between 50-55 years old were also included if they had > 20 pack year smoking history and at least one additional lung cancer risk factor. All patients included in this analysis completed an initial lung cancer screening consultation and recommended follow-up evaluations with thoracic surgeons from March 2013 to December 2018. All patients with suggestive abnormalities were discussed at a multidisciplinary conference prior to embarking on any invasive procedures. Patient data was collected on REDCap. Descriptive statistics for all continuous (mean ± SD) and categorical [N (%)] variables were calculated on patients. Results: 470 patients were included in the final analysis. The majority of the patients were males (56.4%), mean age was 64 years old (range: 50-81), and 55.3% were current smokers. The average smoking history was 42.3 pack years. 223 (47.6%) patients had a family history of cancer and 70 (14.5%) patients had a personal history of cancer. 25 patients (5.3%) had a diagnosis of primary lung cancer, among whom, 16 patients (64%) had early stage lung cancer (stage 1 and stage 2), 5 patients (20%) had stage 3, and 4 patients (16%) had stage 4 lung cancer. The cancer distribution included 17 adenocarcinomas (68%), 3 squamous cell carcinomas (12%), 3 small cell cancers (12%), 1 large cell cancer (4%) and 1 carcinoid tumor (4%). Conclusions: This study has demonstrated the value of enrolling patients in a community-based lung cancer screening program. Our results have reiterated the prevalence of discovering early staged lung cancer in high risk patients. This comprehensive five-year review indicates the importance of physician coordinated follow-up and evaluation in lung cancer screening patients.

Prognostic selection and long-term survival analysis to assess overdiagnosis risk in lung cancer screening randomized trials

2020 ◽  
pp. 096914132092303
Author(s):  
Eugenio Paci ◽  
Donella Puliti ◽  
Francesca Maria Carozzi ◽  
Laura Carrozzi ◽  
Fabio Falaschi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
And Control ◽  
Screening Trial

Objectives Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography randomized screening trials varies from 0 to 67%. The National Lung Screening Trial (extended follow-up) and ITALUNG (Italian Lung Cancer Screening Trial) have reported cumulative incidence estimates at long-term follow-up showing low or no overdiagnosis. The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial attributed the high overdiagnosis estimate to a likely selection for risk of the active arm. Here, we applied a method already used in benefit and overdiagnosis assessments to compute the long-term survival rates in the ITALUNG arms in order to confirm incidence-excess method assessment. Methods Subjects in the active arm were invited for four screening rounds, while controls were in usual care. Follow-up was extended to 11.3 years. Kaplan-Meyer 5- and 10-year survivals of “resected and early” (stage I or II and resected) and “unresected or late” (stage III or IV or not resected or unclassified) lung cancer cases were compared between arms. Results The updated ITALUNG control arm cumulative incidence rate was lower than in the active arm, but this was not statistically significant (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.67–1.18). A compensatory drop of late cases was observed after baseline screening. The proportion of “resected and early” cases was 38% and 19%, in the active and control arms, respectively. The 10-year survival rates were 64% and 60% in the active and control arms, respectively ( p = 0.689). The five-year survival rates for “unresected or late” cases were 10% and 7% in the active and control arms, respectively ( p = 0.679). Conclusions This long-term survival analysis, by prognostic categories, concluded against the long-term risk of overdiagnosis and contributed to revealing how screening works.

Spirometry performed as part of the Manchester community-based lung cancer screening programme detects a high prevalence of airflow obstruction in individuals without a prior diagnosis of COPD

Thorax ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (8) ◽  
pp. 655-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haval Balata ◽  
Jonathan Harvey ◽  
Phil V Barber ◽  
Denis Colligan ◽  
Rebecca Duerden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Risk Estimation ◽  
Airflow Obstruction ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Previous Diagnosis ◽  
Cancer Screening Programme

BackgroundCOPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. We investigated the role of spirometry in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.MethodsEver smokers, age 55–74, resident in three deprived areas of Manchester were invited to a ‘Lung Health Check’ (LHC) based in convenient community locations. Spirometry was incorporated into the LHCs alongside lung cancer risk estimation (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Study Risk Prediction Model, 2012 version (PLCOM2012)), symptom assessment and smoking cessation advice. Those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOM2012 ≥1.51%) were eligible for annual low-dose CT screening over two screening rounds. Airflow obstruction was defined as FEV1/FVC<0.7. Primary care databases were searched for any prior diagnosis of COPD.Results99.4% (n=2525) of LHC attendees successfully performed spirometry; mean age was 64.1±5.5, 51% were women, 35% were current smokers. 37.4% (n=944) had airflow obstruction of which 49.7% (n=469) had no previous diagnosis of COPD. 53.3% of those without a prior diagnosis were symptomatic (n=250/469). After multivariate analysis, the detection of airflow obstruction without a prior COPD diagnosis was associated with male sex (adjOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.47; p<0.0001), younger age (p=0.015), lower smoking duration (p<0.0001), fewer cigarettes per day (p=0.035), higher FEV1/FVC ratio (<0.0001) and being asymptomatic (adjOR 4.19, 95% CI 2.95 to 5.95; p<0.0001). The likelihood of screen detected lung cancer was significantly greater in those with evidence of airflow obstruction who had a previous diagnosis of COPD (adjOR 2.80, 95% CI 1.60 to 8.42; p=0.002).ConclusionsIncorporating spirometry into a community-based targeted lung cancer screening programme is feasible and identifies a significant number of individuals with airflow obstruction who do not have a prior diagnosis of COPD.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in the Community Setting in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. e607-e615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Copeland ◽  
Angela Criswell ◽  
Andrew Ciupek ◽  
Jennifer C. King
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
The United States ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Lung Cancers ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography

PURPOSE: The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography screening, leading to implementation of lung cancer screening across the United States. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage, but questions remained about effectiveness of community-based screening. To assess screening implementation during the first full year of CMS coverage, we surveyed a nationwide network of lung cancer screening centers, comparing results from academic and nonacademic centers. METHODS: One hundred sixty-five lung cancer screening centers that have been designated Screening Centers of Excellence responded to a survey about their 2016 program data and practices. The survey included 21 pretested, closed- and open-ended quantitative and qualitative questions covering implementation, workflow, numbers of screening tests completed, and cancers diagnosed. RESULTS: Centers were predominantly community based (62%), with broad geographic distribution. In both community and academic centers, more than half of lung cancers were diagnosed at stage I or limited stage, demonstrating a clear stage shift compared with historical data. Lung-RADS results were also comparable. There are wide variations in the ways centers address Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requirements. The most significant barriers to screening implementation were insurance and billing issues, lack of provider referral, lack of patient awareness, and internal workflow challenges. CONCLUSION: These data validate that responsible screening can take place in a community setting and that lung cancers detected by low-dose computed tomography screening are often diagnosed at an early, more treatable stage. Lung cancer screening programs have developed different ways to address requirements, but many implementation challenges remain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document