scholarly journals Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146832110678
Author(s):  
Kristin G. Maki ◽  
Kaiping Liao ◽  
Lisa M. Lowenstein ◽  
M. Angeles Lopez-Olivo ◽  
Robert J. Volk
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Anticipated Regret ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography

Background. Screening with low-dose computed tomography scans can reduce lung cancer deaths but uptake remains low. This study examines psychosocial factors associated with obtaining lung cancer screening (LCS) among individuals. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted with 13 state quitlines’ clients. Participants who met age and smoking history criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 6 months. Only participants randomized to the intervention group (a patient decision aid) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression was performed to identify determinants of obtaining LCS 6 months after the intervention. Results. There were 204 participants included in this study. Regarding individual attitudes, high and moderate levels of concern about overdiagnosis were associated with a decreased likelihood of obtaining LCS compared with lower levels of concern (high levels of concern, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–0.65; moderate levels of concern, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05–0.53). In contrast, higher levels of anticipated regret about not obtaining LCS and later being diagnosed with lung cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of being screened compared with lower levels of anticipated regret (OR 5.59, 95% CI 1.72–18.10). Other potential harms related to LCS were not significant. Limitations. Follow-up may not have been long enough for all individuals who wished to be screened to complete the scan. Additionally, participants may have been more health motivated due to recruitment via tobacco quitlines. Conclusions. Anticipated regret about not obtaining screening is associated with screening behavior, whereas concern about overdiagnosis is associated with decreased likelihood of LCS. Implications. Decision support research may benefit from further examining anticipated regret in screening decisions. Additional training and information may be helpful to address concerns regarding overdiagnosis.

scholarly journals Ten years of experience in lung cancer screening in Gdańsk, Poland: a comparative study of the evaluation and surgical treatment of 14 200 participants of 2 lung cancer screening programmes

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Ostrowski ◽  
Tomasz Marjański ◽  
Robert Dziedzic ◽  
Małgorzata Jelitto-Górska ◽  
Katarzyna Dziadziuszko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Diagnostic Work ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography ◽  
Tomography Scan

Abstract OBJECTIVES The European Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ recommendations confirm the implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe. We compared 2 screening programmes, the Pilot Pomeranian Lung Cancer Screening Programme (pilot study) and the Moltest Bis programme, completed in a single centre. METHODS A total of 8649 healthy volunteers (aged 50–75 years, smoking history ≥20 pack-years) were enrolled in a pilot study between 2009 and 2011, and a total of 5534 healthy volunteers (aged 50–79, smoking history ≥30 pack-years) were enrolled in the Moltest Bis programme between 2016 and 2017. Each participant had a low-dose computed tomography scan of the chest. Participants with a nodule diameter of >10 mm or with suspected tumour morphology underwent a diagnostic work-up in the pilot study. In the Moltest Bis programme, the criteria were based on the volume of the detected nodule on the baseline low-dose computed tomography scan and the volume doubling time in the subsequent rounds. RESULTS Lung cancer was diagnosed in 107 (1.24%) and 105 (1.90%) participants of the pilot study and of the Moltest Bis programme, respectively (P = 0.002). A total of 300 (3.5%) and 199 (3.6%) patients, respectively, were referred for further invasive diagnostic work-ups (P = 0.69). A total of 125 (1.5%) and 80 (1.5%) patients, respectively, underwent surgical resection (P = 0.74). The number of resected benign lesions was similar: 44 (35.0%) and 20 (25.0%), respectively (P = 0.13), but with a downwards trend. Lobectomies and/or segmentectomies were performed in 84.0% and 90.0% of patients with lung cancer, respectively (P = 0.22). Notably, patients in the Moltest Bis programme underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery more often than did those in the pilot study (72.5% vs 24.0%, P < 0.001). Surgical patients with stages I and II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounted for 83.4% of the Moltest patients and 86.4% of the pilot study patients (P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS Modified inclusion criteria in the screening programme lead to a higher detection rate of NSCLC. Growing expertise in lung cancer screening leads to increased indications for minimally invasive surgery and an increased proportion of lung-sparing resections. A single-team experience in lung cancer screening does not lead to a major reduction in the rate of diagnostic procedures and operations for non-malignant lesions.

scholarly journals Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography

2014 ◽  
Vol 62 ◽  
pp. 60-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Volk ◽  
Suzanne K. Linder ◽  
Viola B. Leal ◽  
Vance Rabius ◽  
Paul M. Cinciripini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography

scholarly journals Likely Uptake of a Future a Lung Cancer Screening Programme in Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors: a Questionnaire Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Broadbent ◽  
Christopher J. Armitage ◽  
Philip Crosbie ◽  
John Radford ◽  
Kim Linton
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Heavy Smoking ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Many Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors are at increased risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN), including lung cancer, due to previous treatment for HL. Lung cancer screening (LCS) detects early-stage lung cancers in ever smokers but HL survivors without a heavy smoking history are ineligible for screening. There is a rationale to develop a targeted LCS. The aim of this study was to investigate levels of willingness to undergo LCS in HL survivors, and to identify the psycho-social factors associated with screening hesitancy. Methods A postal questionnaire was sent to 281 HL survivors registered in a long-term follow-up database and at increased risk of SMNs. Demographic, lung cancer risk factors, psycho-social and LCS belief variables were measured. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with lung cancer screening hesitancy, defined as those who would ‘probably’ or ‘probably not’ participate. Results The response rate to the questionnaire was 58% (n=165). Participants were more likely to be female, older and living in a less deprived area than non-participants. Uptake (at any time) of breast and bowel cancer screening among those previously invited was 99% and 77% respectively. 159 participants were at excess risk of lung cancer. The following results refer to these 159. Around half perceived themselves to be at greater risk of lung cancer than their peers. Only 6% were eligible for lung cancer screening pilots aimed at ever smokers in the UK. 98% indicated they would probably or definitely participate in LCS were it available. Psycho-social variables associated with LCS hesitancy on multivariable analysis were male gender (OR 5.94 CI 1.64-21.44, p<0.01), living in an area with a high index of multiple deprivation (IMD) decile (deciles 6-10) (OR 8.22 CI 1.59-42.58, p<0.05) and lower levels of self-efficacy (OR 1.64 CI 1.30-2.08 p<0.01). Conclusion HL survivors responding to this survey were willing to participate in a future LCS programme but there was some hesitancy. A future LCS trial for HL survivors should consider the factors associated with screening hesitancy in in order to minimise barriers to participation.

scholarly journals Using a Patient Decision Aid Video to Assess Current and Former Smokers’ Values About the Harms and Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146831876988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aubri S. Hoffman ◽  
Andrea P. Hempstead ◽  
Ashley J. Housten ◽  
Vincent F. Richards ◽  
Lisa M. Lowenstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Anticipated Regret ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Former Smokers ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography

Background. Recent policy changes require discussing the potential benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. This study explored how current and former smokers value potential benefits and harms after watching a patient decision aid, and their screening intentions. Methods. Current or former smokers (quit within 15 years) with no history of lung cancer watched the decision aid and responded to items assessing the value of potential benefits and harms in their decision making, and their screening intentions. Results. After viewing the decision aid, participants ( n = 30; mean age 61.5 years, mean 30.4 pack-year history) were well-informed (mean 80.5% correct responses) and rated anticipated regret and finding cancer early as highly important in their decision (medians >9 out of 10), along with moderate but variable concerns about false positives, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure (medians 7.0, 6.0, and 5.0, respectively). Most participants (90.0% to 96.7%) felt clear about how they personally valued the potential benefits and harms and prepared for decision making (mean 86.7 out of 100, SD = 21.3). After viewing the decision aid, most participants (90%) intended to discuss screening with their doctor. Limitations. The study is limited to current and former smokers enrolled in a tobacco treatment program, and it may not generalize to other patient populations. Conclusions. The majority of current and former smokers were strongly concerned about anticipated regret and finding cancer early, while concerns about radiation exposure, false positives, and overdiagnosis were variable. After viewing the decision aid, current and former smokers reported strong preparedness and intentions to talk with their doctor about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.

scholarly journals Randomized Electronic Promotion of Lung Cancer Screening: A Pilot

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Abbie L. Begnaud ◽  
Anne M. Joseph ◽  
Bruce R. Lindgren
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Care Group ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Former Smokers

Purpose Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography is endorsed by the US Preventive Services Task Force, but many eligible patients have yet to be offered screening. Major barriers to the implementation of screening are physician and system related—the requirement for a detailed smoking history, including pack-years, to determine eligibility. We conducted this pilot to determine the feasibility of lung cancer screening (LCS) promotion that would offer screening to eligible persons and patient completion of smoking history to estimate the size of the population of former smokers who may be eligible for LCS in a single health care system. Patients and Methods Two hundred participants were randomly selected from former smokers who were seen at the University of Minnesota Health in the past 2 years and assigned to control (usual care) and electronic promotion, stratified by age. Electronic messages to promote LCS were sent to an intervention group, including a link to complete a detailed smoking history in the electronic health record. Results Of 99 participants, 66 (67%) in the intervention group read the message, 24 (36%) of 66 responded, and 19 (79%) of 24 respondents completed the smoking history. Ten intervention participants and 13 usual care participants were eligible for screening on the basis of pack-year history. Four eligible participants underwent screening in the intervention group compared with one participant in the usual care group. Conclusion Electronic promotion may help identify patients who are eligible for LCS but will not reliably reach all patients because of low response rates. In this sample of former smokers, the majority are ineligible for LCS on the basis of pack-year history. Electronic methods can improve documentation of smoking history.

LOW-DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN MOSCOW FOR LUNG CANCER SCREENING (LDCT-MLCS): BASELINE RESULTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-233
Author(s):  
Sergey Morozov ◽  
Viktor Gombolevskiy ◽  
Anton Vladzimirskiy ◽  
Albina Laypan ◽  
Pavel Kononets ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Number Needed To Screen ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography

Study aim. To justify selective lung cancer screening via low-dose computed tomography and evaluate its effectiveness. Materials and methods. In 2017 we have concluded the baseline stage of “Lowdose computed tomography in Moscow for lung cancer screening (LDCT-MLCS)” trial. The trial included 10 outpatient clinics with 64-detector CT units (Toshiba Aquilion 64 and Toshiba CLX). Special low-dose protocols have been developed for each unit with maximum effective dose of 1 mSv (in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2.2.1, Sanitary Regulations 2.6.1.1192-03). The study involved 5,310 patients (53% men, 47% women) aged 18-92 years (mean age 62 years). Diagnosis verification was carried out in the specialized medical organizations via consultations, additional instrumental, laboratory as well as pathohistological studies. The results were then entered into the “National Cancer Registry”. Results. 5310 patients (53% men, 47% women) aged 18 to 92 years (an average of 62 years) participated in the LDCT-MLCS. The final cohort was comprised of 4762 (89.6%) patients. We have detected 291 (6.1%) Lung-RADS 3 lesions, 228 (4.8%) Lung- RADS 4A lesions and 196 (4.1%) Lung-RADS 4B/4X lesions. All 4B and 4X lesions were routed in accordance with the project's methodology and legislative documents. Malignant neoplasms were verified in 84 cases (1.76% of the cohort). Stage I-II lung cancer was actively detected in 40.3% of these individuals. For the first time in the Russian Federation we have calculated the number needed to screen (NNS) to identify one lung cancer (NNS=57) and to detect one Stage I lung cancer (NNS=207). Conclusions. Based on the global experience and our own practices, we argue that selective LDCT is the most systematic solution to the problem of early-stage lung cancer screening.

scholarly journals Implementation of Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening Among the Privately Insured Nonelderly

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146832098477
Author(s):  
Ya-Chen Tina Shih ◽  
Ying Xu ◽  
Lisa M. Lowenstein ◽  
Robert J. Volk
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Coverage Policy ◽  
Privately Insured

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires a written order of shared decision making (SDM) visit in its coverage policy for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS). With screening eligibility starting at age 55, private insurance plans will likely adopt this coverage policy. This study examined the implementation of SDM in the context of LCS among the privately insured. Methods. We constructed two study cohorts from MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database 2016-2017: a LDCT cohort who received LDCT for LCS and an SDM cohort who had an LCS-related SDM visit. For the LDCT cohort, we examined the trend and factors associated with the receipt of SDM within 3 months prior to LDCT. For the SDM cohort, we studied the trend and factors associated with LDCT within 3 months after an SDM visit. Results. For privately insured adults aged <64, 93% (19,681/21,084) of the LDCT cohort did not have a billing claim indicating SDM, although the uptake of SDM increased from 3.1% in 1Q2016 to 8.2% in 4Q2017 ( P < 0.0001). For the SDM cohort, 46% (948/2048) did not have a claim for an LDCT for lung cancer screening in the 3 months after the SDM visit; this percentage increased from 29.5% in 1Q2016 to 61.8% in 3Q2017 ( P < 0.0001). Limitations. Findings cannot be generalized to other nonelderly adults without private insurance. Additionally, the rate of SDM identified from claims may be underreported. Conclusions. We found a growing but low uptake of SDM among privately insured individuals who underwent LDCT. The higher rate of LDCT in the SDM cohort than the rate reported in national studies emphasized the importance of patient awareness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document