OBJECTIVE: The study goal was to examine the effects of an initial false positive chest X-ray screening result on subsequent lung cancer screening adherence. METHODS: Adherence rates among 4705 individuals in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial at the Henry Ford Health System site with an abnormal/suspicious chest X-ray screening result in the first study year that was subsequently determined to be noncancerous (false positive result, n = 1137 exams) were compared with adherence rates among individuals with an initial negative chest X-ray screening result (n = 3568 exams). RESULTS: Univariate results showed a >50% increase in subsequent nonadherence among individuals with false positive screening results compared with those with negative screening results (17.2% versus 10.3% nonadherence rate, respectively; P < 0.001). Multivariable results showed that statistically significant predictors of nonadherence were false positive cases with current smoking status (P < 0.001) and false positive cases with past smoking status (P < 0.001). Additional predictors of subsequent nonadherence were being African-American (P < 0.01), being female (P < 0.001), and having a high school education or less (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the impact of previous screening results, smoking status, race, gender, and education on subsequent screening adherence needs to be weighed carefully, particularly for smokers, an at-risk group, when conducting lung cancer screening intervention studies and perhaps should be considered in clinical practice as well.
OBJECTIVE: The study goal was to examine the effects of an initial false positive chest X-ray screening result on subsequent lung cancer screening adherence. METHODS: Adherence rates among 4705 individuals in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial at the Henry Ford Health System site with an abnormal/suspicious chest X-ray screening result in the first study year that was subsequently determined to be noncancerous (false positive result, n = 1137 exams) were compared with adherence rates among individuals with an initial negative chest X-ray screening result (n = 3568 exams). RESULTS: Univariate results showed a >50% increase in subsequent nonadherence among individuals with false positive screening results compared with those with negative screening results (17.2% versus 10.3% nonadherence rate, respectively; P < 0.001). Multivariable results showed that statistically significant predictors of nonadherence were false positive cases with current smoking status (P < 0.001) and false positive cases with past smoking status (P < 0.001). Additional predictors of subsequent nonadherence were being African-American (P < 0.01), being female (P < 0.001), and having a high school education or less (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the impact of previous screening results, smoking status, race, gender, and education on subsequent screening adherence needs to be weighed carefully, particularly for smokers, an at-risk group, when conducting lung cancer screening intervention studies and perhaps should be considered in clinical practice as well.
Authors: Pamela M McMahon; Chung Yin Kong; Bruce E Johnson; Milton C Weinstein; Jane C Weeks; Karen M Kuntz; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Stephen J Swensen; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pamela M McMahon; Chung Yin Kong; Milton C Weinstein; Angela C Tramontano; Lauren E Cipriano; Bruce E Johnson; Jane C Weeks; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Martin C Tammemägi; Timothy R Church; William G Hocking; Gerard A Silvestri; Paul A Kvale; Thomas L Riley; John Commins; Christine D Berg Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Eiron John Lugtu; Denise Bernadette Ramos; Alliah Jen Agpalza; Erika Antoinette Cabral; Rian Paolo Carandang; Jennica Elia Dee; Angelica Martinez; Julius Eleazar Jose; Abegail Santillan; Ruth Bangaoil; Pia Marie Albano; Rock Christian Tomas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.752