Evaluation of Primary care access to CT scans for patients suspected Lung Cancer with normal chest x-ray

Author(s):  
Amrithraj Bhatta ◽  
Anju Mirakhur ◽  
Marion Bennie
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher T. Su ◽  
Vincent Chau ◽  
Balazs Halmos ◽  
Chirag D. Shah ◽  
Rasim A. Gucalp ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D Neal ◽  
Allan Barham ◽  
Emily Bongard ◽  
Rhiannon Tudor Edwards ◽  
Jim Fitzgibbon ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. S151
Author(s):  
Mohammad Razavi ◽  
Rebekah Euliano ◽  
Jessica Fantazos
Keyword(s):  
X Ray ◽  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18614-e18614
Author(s):  
Christopher Su ◽  
Vincent Chau ◽  
Balazs Halmos ◽  
Chirag D Shah ◽  
Rasim A. Gucalp ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (689) ◽  
pp. e827-e835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen H Bradley ◽  
Sarah Abraham ◽  
Matthew EJ Callister ◽  
Adam Grice ◽  
William T Hamilton ◽  
...  

BackgroundDespite increasing use of computed tomography (CT), chest X-ray remains the first-line investigation for suspected lung cancer in primary care in the UK. No systematic review evidence exists as to the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms.AimTo estimate the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in symptomatic people.Design and settingA systematic review was conducted to determine the sensitivity of chest X-ray for the detection of lung cancer.MethodDatabases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched; a grey literature search was also performed.ResultsA total of 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. Almost all were of poor quality. Only one study had the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray as its primary objective. Most articles were case studies with a high risk of bias. Several were drawn from non-representative groups, for example, specific presentations, histological subtypes, or comorbidities. Only three studies had a low risk of bias. Two primary care studies reported sensitivities of 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 64.5 to 84.2%) and 79.3% (95% CI = 67.6 to 91.0%). One secondary care study reported a sensitivity of 79.7% (95% CI = 72.7 to 86.8%).ConclusionThough there is a paucity of evidence, the highest-quality studies suggest that the sensitivity of chest X-ray for symptomatic lung cancer is only 77% to 80%. GPs should consider if further investigation is necessary in high-risk patients who have had a negative chest X-ray.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dingguo Zhang ◽  
Liansheng Wang ◽  
Zhijian Yang

Syncope is an important problem in clinical practice with many possible causes that might be misdiagnosed. We present an unusual case of syncope, which has a normal chest X-ray. Exercise EKG and coronary angioplasty results confirmed the existence of serious coronary heart disease. The patient was treated with coronary stent transplantation. However, scope occurred again and the elevated tumor makers cytokeratin-19-fragment and neuron-specific enolase revealed the bronchogenic carcinoma, which was confirmed by enhanced CT examination. The treatment of carcinoma by chemotherapy was indeed sufficient for prompt elimination of the syncope symptoms.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23050-e23050
Author(s):  
Tatsuo Kimura ◽  
Shinya Fukumoto ◽  
Hiroyasu Morikawa ◽  
Akemi Nakano ◽  
Koji Otani ◽  
...  

e23050 Background: Chest X ray (CXR) has been the most common screen procedure for detection of lung cancer. However, if patients had old inflammatory shadows such as tuberculosis, calcification and fibrotic changes, it would become increasingly difficult to detect the lung cancer. In that case, the previous CXR helps the detection of new shadows. We examine whether the repeat participants (pts) who received the medical checkup annually, may improve the rate of lung cancer detection. Methods: Our clinic “MedCity21” was a university outpatient clinic to undergo a complete medical checkup in private health screening program. The pts with abnormalities detected in CXR were announced by call request and invited to our specialty clinic for chest CT scan as further examination. We examined the varieties of abnormal shadows by CXR and CT scans in recent 3 years. Furthermore, we compared the differences between the repeat and the first-time pts using the chi-square tests. Results: In 2016, 2017 and 2018, a total of 10020, 11925 and 12540 pts were enrolled, respectively. The CXR abnormalities for further examinations were detected in 282 (2.8%), 344 (2.9%) and 335 (2.6%) pts, respectively. After the call requests, 203 (72.0%), 239 (69.4%) and 239 (71.3%) pts received chest CT scan in our clinic. In 2016 and 2017, 7 and 9 pts were diagnosed as lung cancer within 12 months follow-up. In 2018, 6 pts were diagnosed as lung cancer, and another 4 pts were now observed. The numbers of lung cancer detections by CXR per 100,000 people were 70.0, 75.5 and ≥47.8, respectively. The repeat / first time pts in 2018 were 6898/5642 pts (55/45%), and 142/193 pts (2.1/3.4%) had CXR abnormalities (p < 0.01), respectively. The varieties of abnormal shadows by CT scans showed that 8.3/20.8% of old inflammatory shadows (p < 0.01), 11.9/20.7% of nodule or GGO (p = 0.47), 12.8/12.3% of Mycobacterial infections or suspected (p = 0.46), and 11.0/6.9% of acute bacterial infections (p = 0.98). Lung cancer was detected in 3/3 pts (p = 0.86), respectively. Conclusions: The repeat pts had significantly lower rate of CXR abnormalities detection, and the first time pts had higher rate of error detection old inflammatory changes as significant. In private health screening program, the repeat pts may have higher profits for the exclusion of lung cancer than the first time pts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document