Literature DB >> 26426785

An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice.

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.   

Abstract

RATIONALE: Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals and is now recommended by multiple organizations. However, LDCT screening is complex, and implementation requires careful planning to ensure benefits outweigh harms. Little guidance has been provided for sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs.
OBJECTIVES: To promote successful implementation of comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe, effective, and sustainable.
METHODS: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and implementation science. The committee reviewed the evidence from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, surveys, and the experience of early-adopting LDCT screening programs and summarized potential strategies to implement LDCT screening programs successfully.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We address steps that sites should consider during the main three phases of developing an LDCT screening program: planning, implementation, and maintenance. We present multiple strategies to implement the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent ACCP/ATS statement, which will allow sites to select the strategy that best fits with their local context and workflow patterns. Although we do not comment on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, we outline the necessary costs associated with starting and sustaining a high-quality LDCT screening program.
CONCLUSIONS: Following the strategies delineated in this policy statement may help sites to develop comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe and effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26426785      PMCID: PMC4613898          DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201508-1671ST

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med        ISSN: 1073-449X            Impact factor:   21.405


  68 in total

1.  The effectiveness of a computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention for participants in lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Carlijn M van der Aalst; Harry J de Koning; Karien A M van den Bergh; Marc C Willemsen; Rob J van Klaveren
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 5.705

2.  Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society.

Authors:  Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  A risk model for prediction of lung cancer.

Authors:  Margaret R Spitz; Waun Ki Hong; Christopher I Amos; Xifeng Wu; Matthew B Schabath; Qiong Dong; Sanjay Shete; Carol J Etzel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-05-02       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  The rationale for, and design of, a lung cancer screening program.

Authors:  Peter Mazzone
Journal:  Cleve Clin J Med       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.321

Review 5.  Smoking behaviors among patients receiving computed tomography for lung cancer screening. Systematic review in support of the U.S. preventive services task force.

Authors:  Christopher G Slatore; Christina Baumann; Miranda Pappas; Linda L Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2014-05

6.  Initial experience with a free, high-volume, low-dose CT lung cancer screening program.

Authors:  Brady J McKee; Andrea B McKee; Sebastian Flacke; Carla R Lamb; Paul J Hesketh; Christoph Wald
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  A pilot test of a combined tobacco dependence treatment and lung cancer screening program.

Authors:  Amy K Ferketich; Gregory A Otterson; Mark King; Nathan Hall; Kristine K Browning; Mary Ellen Wewers
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 5.705

8.  Performance of ACR Lung-RADS in a clinical CT lung screening program.

Authors:  Brady J McKee; Shawn M Regis; Andrea B McKee; Sebastian Flacke; Christoph Wald
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers.

Authors:  Nanda Horeweg; Ernst Th Scholten; Pim A de Jong; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Carla Weenink; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Kevin ten Haaf; Uraujh A Yousaf-Khan; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Erik Thunnissen; Matthijs Oudkerk; Willem Mali; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 10.  Screening for lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Frank C Detterbeck; Peter J Mazzone; David P Naidich; Peter B Bach
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 9.410

View more
  79 in total

1.  An Enhanced Shared Decision Making Model to Address Willingness and Ability to Undergo Lung Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Treatment in Minority Underserved Populations.

Authors:  Cherie P Erkmen; Mark Mitchell; Simran Randhawa; Shelby Sferra; Rachel Kim; Verdi DiSesa; Larry R Kaiser; Grace X Ma
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2018-02

2.  Multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative to standardize reporting of lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Laura Cubillos; Alison T Brenner; Katherine Birchard; Louise M Henderson; Paul L Molina; Michael Pignone; Shana Ratner; M Patricia Rivera; Laura Jones; Daniel S Reuland
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-09

3.  Readiness for Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening. A National Survey of Veterans Affairs Pulmonologists.

Authors:  Melissa H Tukey; Jack A Clark; Rendelle Bolton; Michael J Kelley; Christopher G Slatore; David H Au; Renda Soylemez Wiener
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2016-10

4.  Using lessons from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to inform the development of lung cancer screening programs.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Jane J Kim; Ethan A Halm; Rachel M Ballard; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Systems-Level Resources for Pulmonary Nodule Evaluation in the United States: A National Survey.

Authors:  James Simmons; Michael K Gould; Jonathan Iaccarino; Christopher G Slatore; Renda Soylemez Wiener
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 6.  Biomarkers of risk to develop lung cancer in the new screening era.

Authors:  Thomas Atwater; Pierre P Massion
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-04

7.  Update in Lung Cancer 2015.

Authors:  Avrum Spira; Balazs Halmos; Charles A Powell
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 8.  Incidental nodule management-should there be a formal process?

Authors:  Sonali Sethi; Scott Parrish
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.895

9.  Interchangeability between real and three-dimensional simulated lung tumors in computed tomography: an interalgorithm volumetry study.

Authors:  Marthony Robins; Justin Solomon; Jocelyn Hoye; Taylor Smith; Yuese Zheng; Lukas Ebner; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-09-24

10.  Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites.

Authors:  Stephen D Clark; Daniel S Reuland; Chineme Enyioha; Daniel E Jonas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.