Literature DB >> 29632062

NCCN Guidelines as a Model of Extended Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.

Brady J McKee, Shawn Regis, Andrea K Borondy-Kitts, Jeffrey A Hashim, Robert J French, Christoph Wald, Andrea B McKee.   

Abstract

Background: This review assessed the performance of patients in NCCN high-risk group 2 in a clinical CT lung screening (CTLS) program.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed screening results for all patients from our institution undergoing clinical CTLS from January 2012 through December 2016, with follow-up through June 2017. To qualify for screening, patients had to meet the NCCN Guidelines high-risk criteria for CTLS, have a physician order for screening, be asymptomatic, be lung cancer-free for 5 years, and have no known metastatic disease. We compared demographics and screening performance of NCCN high-risk groups 1 and 2 across >4 rounds of screening. Screening metrics assessed included rates of positive and suspicious examinations, significant incidental and infectious/inflammatory findings, false negatives, and cancer detection. We also compared cancer stage and histology detected in each NCCN high-risk group.
Results: A total of 2,927 individuals underwent baseline screening, of which 698 (24%) were in NCCN group 2. On average, group 2 patients were younger (60.6 vs 63.1 years), smoked less (38.8 vs 50.8 pack-years), had quit longer (18.1 vs 6.3 years), and were more often former smokers (61.4% vs 44.2%). Positive and suspicious examination rates, false negatives, and rates of infectious/inflammatory findings were equivalent in groups 1 and 2 across all rounds of screening. An increased rate of cancer detection was observed in group 2 during the second annual (T2) screening round (2.7% vs 0.5%; P=.005), with no difference in the other screening rounds: baseline (T0; 2% vs 2.3%; P=.61), first annual (T1; 1.2% vs 1.7%; P=.41), and third annual and beyond (≥T3; 1.2% vs 1.1%; P=1.00). Conclusions: CTLS appears to be equally effective in both NCCN high-risk groups.
Copyright © 2018 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29632062     DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw        ISSN: 1540-1405            Impact factor:   11.908


  5 in total

1.  Clinical Efficacy of Single-Port Thoracoscopic Lobectomy versus Three-Port Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Yueliang Xu; Yinxi Zhou; Feng Lv; Yongshi Liu; Xiang Ji
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2022-05-14       Impact factor: 4.501

2.  ERS International Congress, Madrid, 2019: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly.

Authors:  Adrien Costantini; Clementine Bostantzoglou; Torsten Gerriet Blum
Journal:  ERJ Open Res       Date:  2020-07-20

Review 3.  Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications.

Authors:  Wenya Linda Bi; Ahmed Hosny; Matthew B Schabath; Maryellen L Giger; Nicolai J Birkbak; Alireza Mehrtash; Tavis Allison; Omar Arnaout; Christopher Abbosh; Ian F Dunn; Raymond H Mak; Rulla M Tamimi; Clare M Tempany; Charles Swanton; Udo Hoffmann; Lawrence H Schwartz; Robert J Gillies; Raymond Y Huang; Hugo J W L Aerts
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  An Audit of Opportunistic Lung Cancer Screening in a Canadian Province.

Authors:  Victoria Linehan; Scott Harris; Rick Bhatia
Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec

5.  The diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in thoracic diseases: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yi Yang; Gang Jin; Yao Pang; Wenhao Wang; Hongyi Zhang; Guangxin Tuo; Peng Wu; Zequan Wang; Zijiang Zhu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.817

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.