Stephen M Cattaneo1, Barry R Meisenberg2, Maria C M Geronimo3, Bishal Bhandari3, John W Maxted3, Catherine J Brady-Copertino2. 1. Division of Thoracic Oncology, DeCesaris Cancer Institute, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, Maryland. Electronic address: scattaneo@aahs.org. 2. DeCesaris Cancer Institute, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, Maryland. 3. Division of Thoracic Oncology, DeCesaris Cancer Institute, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer has high incidence and high mortality burden, particularly because it is typically diagnosed in later stages. The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated a lung cancer-specific mortality benefit in high-risk current and former smokers with yearly low-dose chest computed tomography (CT). Lung cancer screening is thus recommended, but it is unclear whether the results of the National Lung Screening Trial can be replicated in community settings. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of the lung screening program over its first 5 years, 2012 to 2016. Patients' demographics, initial screening results, follow-up, and management results were analyzed in relation to the National Lung Screening Trial results. Annual adherence was defined as returning for imaging within 1 year + 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 1,241 persons underwent initial screening over the 5-year period; 78.6% of findings were benign, and only annual repeat low-dose chest CT was recommended. A total of 29 cancers were identified in 26 participants (2%), of which 72% were stage I. The annual adherence rate to repeat imaging after a low-risk baseline scan was 37%, and the any follow-up rate was 51% despite programmatic efforts to follow screening recommendations. When positive findings required more intensive evaluation, most commonly by repeat chest CT scan, adherence was 88%. A total of 1.1% of all participants had invasive biopsies for benign results. Complications of biopsy were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that a community-based program can approximate the results of the National Lung Screening Trial in detecting early lung cancers. Further study of the adherence phenomenon is essential.
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer has high incidence and high mortality burden, particularly because it is typically diagnosed in later stages. The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated a lung cancer-specific mortality benefit in high-risk current and former smokers with yearly low-dose chest computed tomography (CT). Lung cancer screening is thus recommended, but it is unclear whether the results of the National Lung Screening Trial can be replicated in community settings. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of the lung screening program over its first 5 years, 2012 to 2016. Patients' demographics, initial screening results, follow-up, and management results were analyzed in relation to the National Lung Screening Trial results. Annual adherence was defined as returning for imaging within 1 year + 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 1,241 persons underwent initial screening over the 5-year period; 78.6% of findings were benign, and only annual repeat low-dose chest CT was recommended. A total of 29 cancers were identified in 26 participants (2%), of which 72% were stage I. The annual adherence rate to repeat imaging after a low-risk baseline scan was 37%, and the any follow-up rate was 51% despite programmatic efforts to follow screening recommendations. When positive findings required more intensive evaluation, most commonly by repeat chest CT scan, adherence was 88%. A total of 1.1% of all participants had invasive biopsies for benign results. Complications of biopsy were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that a community-based program can approximate the results of the National Lung Screening Trial in detecting early lung cancers. Further study of the adherence phenomenon is essential.
Authors: Roger Y Kim; Katharine A Rendle; Nandita Mitra; Chelsea A Saia; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Robert T Greenlee; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Stacey A Honda; Michael J Simoff; Marilyn M Schapira; Jennifer M Croswell; Rafael Meza; Debra P Ritzwoller; Anil Vachani Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-09
Authors: William W Phillips; Jessica Copeland; Sophie C Hofferberth; Julee R Armitage; Sam Fox; Margaret Kruithoff; Claire de Forcrand; Paul J Catalano; Christopher S Lathan; Joel S Weissman; David D Odell; Yolonda L Colson Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2021-06-26
Authors: Erin A Hirsch; Anna E Barón; Betsy Risendal; Jamie L Studts; Melissa L New; Stephen P Malkoski Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 6.240
Authors: Maria Sanchez-Carpintero Abad; Pablo Sanchez-Salcedo; Juan P de-Torres; Ana B Alcaide; Luis M Seijo; Jesus Pueyo; Gorka Bastarrika; Javier J Zulueta; Arantza Campo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Kristin G Maki; Noah J Choi; Richard M Hoffman; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Lisa M Lowenstein; Rachel S Hicklen; Robert J Volk Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02
Authors: Eduardo R Núñez; Tanner J Caverly; Sanqian Zhang; Mark E Glickman; Shirley X Qian; Jacqueline H Boudreau; Christopher G Slatore; Donald R Miller; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01