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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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