Early Results of Lung Cancer Screening and Radiation Dose Assessment by Low-dose CT at a Community Hospital

Jacobs, Corbin; Jafari, Mary Ellen

doi:10.1016/j.cllc.2017.01.011

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the Dutch‐Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial (Nederlands‐Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek; the NELSON trial) showed that computed tomography (CT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality 1,2 . While demonstrating the potential benefits of CT screening in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction, NLST, NELSON and other randomised screening trials have also provided insights into the risks for potential harms, such as false‐positive screening tests, overdiagnosis and increased cancer incidence from radiation exposure 1‐13 . Consequently, discussions on whether and how to implement lung cancer screening programs are ongoing in various countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk‐stratification opportunities and challenges

Haaf

Aalst

Koning

et al. 2021

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population-based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk-factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk-based. In fact, the selection of high-risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further riskstratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk-based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk-based approaches can negatively influence the trade-off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large-scale implementation of targeted, risk-based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high-risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk-based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk-stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact. K E Y W O R D S lung cancer screening, personalised screening, risk-based screening Abbreviations: 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN, (Towards INdividually tailored INvitations screening INtervals and INtegrated co-morbidity reducing strategies in lung cancer screening) implementation trial; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; BMI, body mass index; bioMILD, the Plasma microRNA Profiling as First Line Screening Test for Lung Cancer Detection: a

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk‐stratification opportunities and challenges

Haaf

Aalst

Koning

et al. 2021

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lung cancer has become the leading cause of cancer death globally (1), and lung cancer screening and treatment have always been the research focus. With the popularization of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, more and more solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) have been detected (2). SPNs are potentially malignant and heterogeneous.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial intelligence assisted display in thoracic surgery: development and possibilities

Chen¹,

Zhang²,

Yan³

et al. 2021

J Thorac Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Among the 557 references that underwent title and abstract screen, 510 studies were irrelevant to LCS adherence. Of the 47 studies that underwent full-text review, 24 studies 3,4,[12][13][14][15][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] were included in qualitative synthesis, whereas 21 3,4,[12][13][14][15]26,27,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In three studies, [26][27][28] we assumed that exposure (LCS examination and Lung-RADS information) and outcomes (adherence statuses) data were obtained from patient medical records, although this was not stated explicitly. In two studies, 12,29 patients with a pending follow-up examination were excluded from the adherence rate calculation because their adherence statuses were yet to be determined. Adherence outcomes were unknown at the start of all included studies, as patients undergoing LDCT needed to be followed up to determine adherence.…”

Section: Quality (Risk Of Bias) Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Adherence to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System–Recommended Screening Intervals in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lin

Ding

et al. 2022

Journal of Thoracic Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Nevertheless, patient adherence to recommended intervals varies, potentially diminishing benefit from screening. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and major radiology and oncology conference archives between April 28, 2014, and December 17, 2020. Eligible studies mentioned patient adherence to the recommendations of Lung-RADS. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189326). We identified 24 eligible studies for qualitative summary, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled adherence rate was 57% (95% confidence interval: 46%-69%) for defined adherence (e.g., an annual incidence screen was performed within 15 mo) among 6689 patients and 65% (95% confidence interval: 55%-75%) for anytime adherence among 5085 patients. Large heterogeneity in adherence rates between studies was observed (I 2 ¼ 99% for defined adherence, I 2 ¼ 98% for anytime adherence). Heterogeneous adherence rates were associated with Lung-RADS scores, with significantly higher adherence rates among Lung-RADS 3 to 4 than Lung-RADS 1 to 2 (p < 0.05). Patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical LCS programs in the United States, especially among patients with results of Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2. To improve adherence rates, future research may focus on implementing tailored interventions after identifying

show abstract

Early Results of Lung Cancer Screening and Radiation Dose Assessment by Low-dose CT at a Community Hospital

Cited by 30 publications

References 14 publications

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk‐stratification opportunities and challenges

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk‐stratification opportunities and challenges

Artificial intelligence assisted display in thoracic surgery: development and possibilities

Patient Adherence to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System–Recommended Screening Intervals in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About