Literature DB >> 30640382

Complication Rates and Downstream Medical Costs Associated With Invasive Diagnostic Procedures for Lung Abnormalities in the Community Setting.

Jinhai Huo1, Ying Xu2, Tommy Sheu3, Robert J Volk2, Ya-Chen Tina Shih2.   

Abstract

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as a Medicare preventive service benefit in 2015 following findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) that showed a 16% reduction in lung cancer mortality associated with LDCT. A challenge in developing and promoting a national lung cancer screening program is the high false-positive rate of LDCT because abnormal findings from thoracic imaging often trigger subsequent invasive diagnostic procedures and could lead to postprocedural complications. Objective: To determine the complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures performed for identification of lung abnormalities in the community setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of non-protocol-driven community practices captured in MarketScan Commercial Claims & Encounters and Medicare supplemental databases was conducted. A nationally representative sample of 344 510 patients aged 55 to 77 years who underwent invasive diagnostic procedures between 2008 and 2013 was included. Main Outcomes and Measures: One-year complication rates were calculated for 4 groups of invasive diagnostic procedures. The complication rates and costs were further stratified by age group.
Results: Of the 344 510 individuals aged 55 to 77 years included in the study, 174 702 comprised the study group (109 363 [62.6%] women) and 169 808 served as the control group (106 007 [62.4%] women). The estimated complication rate was 22.2% (95% CI, 21.7%-22.7%) for individuals in the young age group and 23.8% (95% CI, 23.0%-24.6%) for those in the Medicare group; the rates were approximately twice as high as those reported in the NLST (9.8% and 8.5%, respectively). The mean incremental complication costs were $6320 (95% CI, $5863-$6777) for minor complications to $56 845 (95% CI, $47 953-$65 737) for major complications. Conclusions and Relevance: The rates of complications after invasive diagnostic procedures were higher than the rates reported in clinical trials. Physicians and patients should be aware of the potential risks of subsequent adverse events and their high downstream costs in the shared decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30640382      PMCID: PMC6440230          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  33 in total

1.  Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: how strong is the evidence?

Authors:  Steven H Woolf; Russell P Harris; Doug Campos-Outcalt
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Association of Facility Type With Procedural-Related Morbidities and Adverse Events Among Patients Undergoing Induced Abortions.

Authors:  Sarah C M Roberts; Ushma D Upadhyay; Guodong Liu; Jennifer L Kerns; Djibril Ba; Nancy Beam; Douglas L Leslie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  Linda S Kinsinger; Charles Anderson; Jane Kim; Martha Larson; Stephanie H Chan; Heather A King; Kathryn L Rice; Christopher G Slatore; Nichole T Tanner; Kathleen Pittman; Robert J Monte; Rebecca B McNeil; Janet M Grubber; Michael J Kelley; Dawn Provenzale; Santanu K Datta; Nina S Sperber; Lottie K Barnes; David H Abbott; Kellie J Sims; Richard L Whitley; R Ryanne Wu; George L Jackson
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Use of CT and Chest Radiography for Lung Cancer Screening Before and After Publication of Screening Guidelines: Intended and Unintended Uptake.

Authors:  Jinhai Huo; Chan Shen; Robert J Volk; Ya-Chen Tina Shih
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 5.  Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; Joshua N Mirkin; Thomas K Oliver; Christopher G Azzoli; Donald A Berry; Otis W Brawley; Tim Byers; Graham A Colditz; Michael K Gould; James R Jett; Anita L Sabichi; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Douglas E Wood; Amir Qaseem; Frank C Detterbeck
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Association of Household Opioid Availability and Prescription Opioid Initiation Among Household Members.

Authors:  Marissa J Seamans; Timothy S Carey; Daniel J Westreich; Stephen R Cole; Stephanie B Wheeler; G Caleb Alexander; Virginia Pate; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Use of video-assisted thoracic surgery for lobectomy in the elderly results in fewer complications.

Authors:  Stephen M Cattaneo; Bernard J Park; Andrew S Wilton; Venkatraman E Seshan; Manjit S Bains; Robert J Downey; Raja M Flores; Nabil Rizk; Valerie W Rusch
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Variables affecting the risk of pneumothorax and intrapulmonal hemorrhage in CT-guided transthoracic biopsy.

Authors:  M F Khan; R Straub; S R Moghaddam; A Maataoui; J Gurung; T O F Wagner; H Ackermann; A Thalhammer; T J Vogl; V Jacobi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 7.034

10.  Incidence and Outcome of Breast Biopsy Procedures During Follow-up After Treatment for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Raquel F D van la Parra; Kaiping Liao; Benjamin D Smith; Wei T Yang; Jessica W T Leung; Sharon H Giordano; Henry M Kuerer
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 16.681

View more
  27 in total

1.  Increasing Numbers and Reported Adverse Events in Patients with Lung Cancer Undergoing Inpatient Lung Biopsies: A Population-Based Analysis.

Authors:  Mitchell S von Itzstein; Arjun Gupta; Kristin C Mara; Sahil Khanna; David E Gerber
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 2.584

2.  Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Debra P Ritzwoller; Katharine A Rendle; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey Honda; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Pamela M Marcus; Mary E Cooley; Anil Vachani; Rafael Meza; Caryn Oshiro; Michael J Simoff; Mitchell D Schnall; Elisabeth F Beaber; V Paul Doria-Rose
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-12-23

3.  Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

4. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Use of Imaging and Diagnostic Procedures After Low-Dose CT Screening for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Shawn P E Nishi; Jie Zhou; Ikenna Okereke; Yong-Fang Kuo; James Goodwin
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 6.  Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Louise C Walter
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 5.456

7.  Results of Lung Cancer Screening in the Community.

Authors:  John R Handy; Michael Skokan; Erika Rauch; Steven Zinck; Rachel E Sanborn; Svetlana Kotova; Mansen Wang
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 8.  A narrative review of sociodemographic risk and disparities in screening, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of the most common extrathoracic malignancies in the United States.

Authors:  Sarah Singh; Praveen Sridhar
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 2.895

9.  Executive Summary: Screening for Lung Cancer: Chest Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 9.410

10.  Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 9.410

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.