| Literature DB >> 30776882 |
Jaeho Lee1, Juntae Lim1,2, Yeol Kim1,2, Hyae Young Kim3, Jin Mo Goo4, Choon-Taek Lee5, Seung Hun Jang6, Won-Chul Lee7, Chan Wha Lee3, Jin Young An8, Ki Dong Ko9, Min Ki Lee10, Kui Son Choi1,2, Boyoung Park1,2, Duk Hyoung Lee1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To reduce lung cancer mortality, lung cancer screening was recommended using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to high-risk population. A protocol for multicenter lung cancer screening pilot project was developed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of lung cancer screening to implement National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Entities:
Keywords: Low-dose computed tomography; Lung neoplasms; Mass screening; Pilot test; Smokers
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30776882 PMCID: PMC6790831 DOI: 10.4143/crt.2018.464
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Res Treat ISSN: 1598-2998 Impact factor: 4.679
Fig. 1.A summary of lung cancer screening procedure in Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS). (A) A summary of lung cancer screening procedure for National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) participants. (B) A summary of lung cancer screening procedure for smoking cessation clinic visitors. LDCT, low-dose computed tomography.
Fig. 2.Network-based diagnosis supporting system using computer-aided detection (CAD) program in Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS). CT, computed tomography.
Fig. 3.Participant flow to screening in pilot test. K-LUCAS, Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project.
General characteristics of participants in pilot test by smoking status
| Characteristic | Current smokers (n=138) | Former smokers (n=118) | p-value[ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 136 (98.6) | 117 (99.2) | 0.559 |
| Female | 2 (1.4) | 1 (0.8) | |
| 55-64 | 106 (76.8) | 80 (67.8) | 0.107 |
| 65-74 | 32 (23.2) | 38 (32.2) | |
| < 40 | 59 (42.8) | 74 (62.7) | 0.001 |
| ≥ 40 | 79 (57.2) | 44 (37.3) | |
| ≤ 9 | 40 (29.0) | 28 (23.7) | 0.609 |
| 10-12 | 46 (33.3) | 41 (34.7) | |
| ≥ 13 | 47 (34.1) | 45 (38.1) | |
| No answer | 5 (3.6) | 4 (3.5) | |
| ≤ 199 | 53 (38.4) | 36 (30.5) | 0.116 |
| 200-399 | 41 (29.7) | 49 (41.5) | |
| ≥ 400 | 36 (26.1) | 25 (21.2) | |
| No answers | 8 (5.8) | 8 (6.8) |
Values are presented as number (%).
Analyzed by chi-square test.
Lung cancer screening results reported based on Lung-RADS by screening hospitals in pilot test
| Lung-RADS | BS (n=42) | CB (n=22) | IC (n=100) | NCC (n=92) | Total (n=256) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 237 (92.6) | |||||
| Cat 1 | 21 (50.0) | 7 (31.8) | 35 (35.0) | 83 (90.2) | 146 (57.0) |
| Cat 2 | 17 (40.5) | 15 (68.2) | 53 (53.0) | 6 (6.5) | 91 (35.5) |
| 19 (7.4) | |||||
| Cat 3 | 1 (2.4) | - | 9 (9.0) | - | 10 (3.9) |
| Cat 4 | 3 (7.1) | - | 3 (3.0) | 3 (3.3) | 9 (3.5) |
Values are presented as number (%). BS, Busan regional cancer center; CB, Chungbuk regional cancer center; IC, Incheon regional cancer center; NCC, National cancer center; Cat 1, Lung-RADS category 1; Cat 2, Lung-RADS category 2; Cat 3, Lung-RADS category 3; Cat 4, Lung-RADS category 4.
Fig. 4.Anxiety of lung cancer before and after lung cancer screening.
Changes in willingness to quit smoking before and after lung cancer screening by participant characteristics
| Characteristic | No. | Mean (95% CI) | Change (%) | p-value[ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before screening | After screening | ||||
| 110 | 6.3 (5.8-6.9) | 7.1 (6.6-7.6) | 12.7 | 0.007 | |
| 55-64 | 86 | 6.3 (5.7-6.9) | 7.3 (5.7-6.8) | 15.8 | 0.002 |
| 65-74 | 24 | 6.5 (5.2-7.8) | 6.3 (5.1-7.6) | –3.1 | 0.753 |
| < 40 | 50 | 6.7 (5.9-7.4) | 7.6 (7.0-8.1) | 13.4 | 0.002 |
| ≥ 40 | 60 | 6.0 (5.2-6.9) | 6.7 (5.9-7.5) | 11.7 | 0.147 |
| ≤ 9 | 31 | 6.7 (5.6-7.7) | 7.3 (6.4-8.1) | 9.0 | 0.149 |
| 10-12 | 39 | 6.3 (5.4-6.1) | 7.2 (6.1-8.2) | 14.3 | 0.161 |
| ≥ 13 | 38 | 6.1 (5.1-7.1) | 7.0 (6.2-7.8) | 14.8 | 0.054 |
| ≤ 199 | 46 | 6.6 (5.7-7.4) | 6.8 (6.0-7.6) | 3.0 | 0.427 |
| 200-399 | 32 | 5.6 (4.6-6.7) | 6.6 (5.9-7.3) | 17.9 | 0.025 |
| ≥ 400 | 28 | 6.6 (5.4-7.8) | 8.0 (6.8-9.2) | 21.2 | 0.125 |
CI, confidence interval.
The changes in willingness to quit smoking before and after low-dose computed tomography screening were evaluated by paired t test.