Marc R Freiman1, Jack A Clark2, Christopher G Slatore3, Michael K Gould4, Steven Woloshin5, Lisa M Schwartz5, Renda Soylemez Wiener6. 1. Pulmonary Center, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Veterans Affairs Memorial Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts; Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement and Care, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 4. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California. 5. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 6. Pulmonary Center, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Veterans Affairs Memorial Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts. Electronic address: rwiener@bu.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary nodules are detected in more than 1 million Americans each year. Prior qualitative work suggests that the detection of incidental pulmonary nodules can be burdensome for patients, but whether these findings generalize to a broader sample of patients is unknown. We categorized patients' knowledge, beliefs, and distress associated with detection and evaluation of a pulmonary nodule, as well as their impressions of clinician communication. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to adults with an incidental pulmonary nodule who were recruited from a rural medical center, an urban safety net hospital, and a Veterans Affairs hospital. RESULTS: Of the 490 individuals mailed surveys, 244 (50%) responded. Median nodule size was 7 mm, mean patient age was 67 years, 29% of respondents were female, and 86% were white. A quarter of the respondents (26%) reported clinically significant distress related to their nodule, our primary outcome, as measured by the Impact of Event Scale. Patients reported multiple concerns, including uncertainty about the nodule's cause (78%), the possibility of cancer (73%), and the possible need for surgery (64%). Only 25% of patients accurately estimated their lung cancer risk (within 15% of their actual risk); overall, there was no correlation between perceived and actual risk (r = -0.007, p = 0.93). The 23% of patients who did receive information on cancer risk from their provider were more likely to find this information reassuring (16%) than scary (7%). CONCLUSION: A quarter of patients with incidental pulmonary nodules experienced clinically significant distress. Knowledge about cancer risk and evaluation was poor. Clinician communication may help bridge knowledge gaps and alleviate distress in some patients. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary nodules are detected in more than 1 million Americans each year. Prior qualitative work suggests that the detection of incidental pulmonary nodules can be burdensome for patients, but whether these findings generalize to a broader sample of patients is unknown. We categorized patients' knowledge, beliefs, and distress associated with detection and evaluation of a pulmonary nodule, as well as their impressions of clinician communication. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to adults with an incidental pulmonary nodule who were recruited from a rural medical center, an urban safety net hospital, and a Veterans Affairs hospital. RESULTS: Of the 490 individuals mailed surveys, 244 (50%) responded. Median nodule size was 7 mm, mean patient age was 67 years, 29% of respondents were female, and 86% were white. A quarter of the respondents (26%) reported clinically significant distress related to their nodule, our primary outcome, as measured by the Impact of Event Scale. Patients reported multiple concerns, including uncertainty about the nodule's cause (78%), the possibility of cancer (73%), and the possible need for surgery (64%). Only 25% of patients accurately estimated their lung cancer risk (within 15% of their actual risk); overall, there was no correlation between perceived and actual risk (r = -0.007, p = 0.93). The 23% of patients who did receive information on cancer risk from their provider were more likely to find this information reassuring (16%) than scary (7%). CONCLUSION: A quarter of patients with incidental pulmonary nodules experienced clinically significant distress. Knowledge about cancer risk and evaluation was poor. Clinician communication may help bridge knowledge gaps and alleviate distress in some patients. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Michael K Gould; Tania Tang; In-Lu Amy Liu; Janet Lee; Chengyi Zheng; Kim N Danforth; Anne E Kosco; Jamie L Di Fiore; David E Suh Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-11-15 Impact factor: 21.405
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: Christopher G Slatore; David H Au; Nancy Press; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Sara E Golden; Linda Ganzini Journal: Respir Med Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: M E J Callister; D R Baldwin; A R Akram; S Barnard; P Cane; J Draffan; K Franks; F Gleeson; R Graham; P Malhotra; M Prokop; K Rodger; M Subesinghe; D Waller; I Woolhouse Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 9.139
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: Siu-Kuen Azor Hui; Suzanne M Miller; Kuang-Yi Wen; Zhu Fang; Tianyu Li; Joanne Buzaglo; Enrique Hernandez Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2014-04-09
Authors: Donald R Sullivan; Sara E Golden; Linda Ganzini; Lissi Hansen; Christopher G Slatore Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 2.871
Authors: Ilana F Gareen; Fenghai Duan; Erin M Greco; Bradley S Snyder; Phillip M Boiselle; Elyse R Park; Dennis Fryback; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stella K Kang; Laura D Scherer; Alec J Megibow; Leslie J Higuita; Nathanael Kim; R Scott Braithwaite; Angela Fagerlin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jonathan M Iaccarino; James Simmons; Michael K Gould; Christopher G Slatore; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-06
Authors: Kristin J Lastwika; Julia Kargl; Yuzheng Zhang; Xiaodong Zhu; Edward Lo; David Shelley; Jon J Ladd; Wei Wu; Paul Kinahan; Sudhakar N J Pipavath; Timothy W Randolph; Melissa Shipley; Paul D Lampe; A McGarry Houghton Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Jack A Clark; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Gemmae M Fix; Christopher G Slatore; Hasmeena Kathuria Journal: Chest Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Donald R Sullivan; Sara E Golden; Linda Ganzini; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Karen B Eden; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-11
Authors: U Pastorino; N Sverzellati; S Sestini; M Silva; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-07-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jonathan S Lee; Sarah Lisker; Eric Vittinghoff; Roy Cherian; David B McCoy; Alex Rybkin; George Su; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2019-11-26