2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.02.072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Feasibility and Safety of Lung Cancer Screening and Prevention Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract: Since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems have focused on its containment, 1,2 facing critical issues in treating patients with medical disorders other than COVID-19, such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases. 2

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We performed a naso-pharyngeal swab the day before the procedure and administered a health questionnaire the day of the procedure before admitting the patient to the radiology department. Our safety protocol was similar to those already reported in literature for other purpose and produced the same results: the rate of collateral diagnosis of suspected COVID infection during the control scan of the procedure was very low (only one patient) and comparable to those reported (0.2%) [15,16]. It is interesting that the rate of procedures cancelled or postponed (14%) was significantly lower than that reported for lung cancer screening (32.7%) probably due to the different nature of the examinations (voluntary nature of the screening compared to the potentially disruptive results of the diagnostic biopsy procedure).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…We performed a naso-pharyngeal swab the day before the procedure and administered a health questionnaire the day of the procedure before admitting the patient to the radiology department. Our safety protocol was similar to those already reported in literature for other purpose and produced the same results: the rate of collateral diagnosis of suspected COVID infection during the control scan of the procedure was very low (only one patient) and comparable to those reported (0.2%) [15,16]. It is interesting that the rate of procedures cancelled or postponed (14%) was significantly lower than that reported for lung cancer screening (32.7%) probably due to the different nature of the examinations (voluntary nature of the screening compared to the potentially disruptive results of the diagnostic biopsy procedure).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…The findings align with published accounts of responses by individual breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening programmes 6 17 19 20 22 32–41. The literature ranged from reports from individual screening clinics or jurisdictions, to national cancer screening approaches.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…However, this structure needed to be converted to cope with the increased workload following the pandemic. Furthermore, tailored approaches are needed to guarantee safe management of patients, screenees and healthcare personnel [ 10 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%