Christopher G Slatore1, Donald R Sullivan2, Miranda Pappas3, Linda L Humphrey4. 1. Health Services Research and Development, Portland, Oregon; Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Portland, Oregon; Pacific Northwest Evidence-Based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: slatore@ohsu.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Portland, Oregon. 3. Pacific Northwest Evidence-Based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Portland, Oregon. 4. Pacific Northwest Evidence-Based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Portland, Oregon; Division of Specialty and Hospital Medicine, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon; Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now widely recommended for adults who are current or former heavy smokers. It is important to evaluate the impact of screening on patient-centered outcomes. Among current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, we sought to determine the consequences of screening with LDCT, and subsequent results, on patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life, distress, and anxiety. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth Quarter 2012), MEDLINE (2000 to May 31, 2013), reference lists of articles, and Scopus for relevant English-language studies and systematic reviews. To evaluate the effect of LDCT screening on patient-centered outcomes, we included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving asymptomatic adults. To evaluate the association of particular results and/or recommendations from a screening LDCT with patient-centered outcomes, we included results from RCTs as well as from cohort studies. RESULTS: A total of 8215 abstracts were reviewed. Five publications from two European RCTs and one publication from a cohort study conducted in the United States met inclusion criteria. The process of LDCT lung cancer screening was associated with short-term psychologic discomfort in many people but did not affect distress, worry, or health-related quality of life. False-positive results were associated with short-term increases in distress that returned to levels that were similar to those among people with negative results. Negative results were associated with short-term decreases in distress. CONCLUSIONS: As lung cancer screening is implemented in the general population, it will be important to evaluate its association with patient-centered outcomes. People considering lung cancer screening should be aware of the possibility of distress caused by false-positive results. Clinicians may want to consider tailoring communication strategies that can decrease the distress associated with these results.
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now widely recommended for adults who are current or former heavy smokers. It is important to evaluate the impact of screening on patient-centered outcomes. Among current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, we sought to determine the consequences of screening with LDCT, and subsequent results, on patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life, distress, and anxiety. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth Quarter 2012), MEDLINE (2000 to May 31, 2013), reference lists of articles, and Scopus for relevant English-language studies and systematic reviews. To evaluate the effect of LDCT screening on patient-centered outcomes, we included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving asymptomatic adults. To evaluate the association of particular results and/or recommendations from a screening LDCT with patient-centered outcomes, we included results from RCTs as well as from cohort studies. RESULTS: A total of 8215 abstracts were reviewed. Five publications from two European RCTs and one publication from a cohort study conducted in the United States met inclusion criteria. The process of LDCT lung cancer screening was associated with short-term psychologic discomfort in many people but did not affect distress, worry, or health-related quality of life. False-positive results were associated with short-term increases in distress that returned to levels that were similar to those among people with negative results. Negative results were associated with short-term decreases in distress. CONCLUSIONS: As lung cancer screening is implemented in the general population, it will be important to evaluate its association with patient-centered outcomes. People considering lung cancer screening should be aware of the possibility of distress caused by false-positive results. Clinicians may want to consider tailoring communication strategies that can decrease the distress associated with these results.
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Jack A Clark Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Karien A M van den Bergh; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Rob J van Klaveren; Harry J de Koning Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-06-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Martin C Tammemägi; Hormuzd A Katki; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Neil Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; Anil K Chaturvedi; Gerard A Silvestri; Tom L Riley; John Commins; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karien A M van den Bergh; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Eveline M Bunge; Ernst Th Scholten; Mathias Prokop; Carola A van Iersel; Rob J van Klaveren; Harry J de Koning Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Linda L Humphrey; Mark Deffebach; Miranda Pappas; Christina Baumann; Kathryn Artis; Jennifer Priest Mitchell; Bernadette Zakher; Rongwei Fu; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Christopher G Slatore; Nanda Horeweg; James R Jett; David E Midthun; Charles A Powell; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Juan P Wisnivesky; Michael K Gould Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Lisa M Fucito; Sharon Czabafy; Peter S Hendricks; Chris Kotsen; Donna Richardson; Benjamin A Toll Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marc R Freiman; Jack A Clark; Christopher G Slatore; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Anne C Melzer; Sara E Golden; Sarah S Ono; Santanu Datta; Kristina Crothers; Christopher G Slatore Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Douglas A Arenberg; David H Au; Kathleen Fennig; Carla R Lamb; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; Maryann Napoli; David E Ost; Charles A Powell; M Patricia Rivera; Christopher G Slatore; Nichole T Tanner; Anil Vachani; Juan P Wisnivesky; Sue H Yoon Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405