Literature DB >> 31631776

Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.

Paul K J Han1, Christine Lary1, Adam Black1, Caitlin Gutheil1, Hayley Mandeville1, Jason Yahwak2, Mayuko Fukunaga3.   

Abstract

Background. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is a preference-sensitive intervention that should ideally be individualized according to patients' likelihood of benefit and personal values. Personalized cancer risk information (PCRI) may facilitate this goal, but its effects are unknown. Objective. To evaluate the effects of providing PCRI to patients referred for LDCT screening. Design. Mixed-methods, pre-post study using surveys administered to patients before and after provision of PCRI-calculated by the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model-in shared decision-making consultations, and postvisit qualitative interviews. Setting. Centralized specialty-based LDCT screening program at a tertiary care hospital. Participants. Convenience sample of eligible patients referred for LDCT screening. Measurements. Pre- and postvisit surveys assessed patients' 1) perceived lung cancer risk, 2) uncertainty about their risk, 3) minimum risk threshold for wanting screening, 4) interest in LDCT screening, and 5) interest in smoking cessation. Qualitative interviews explored patients' perceptions of the value of PCRI. Screening uptake was assessed by chart review. Results. Sixty of 70 (86%) patients received PCRI and completed pre-post surveys, and 17 patients (28%) completed qualitative interviews. Perceived lung cancer risk decreased from 52% previsit to 31% postvisit (P < 0.0001). However, patients' minimum risk thresholds for screening decreased, their screening interest increased, and all patients completed screening. Qualitative interviews corroborated these effects, suggesting that patients discount and interpret PCRI according to preexisting beliefs and attitudes. Limitations. The study population was a relatively small, single-institution sample of patients referred for screening. Conclusions. Personalized cancer risk information decreases cancer risk perceptions of patients referred for LDCT screening, but has complex effects on screening-related judgments and decisions. The value of PCRI for patients considering LDCT screening requires further investigation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  lung cancer; risk perceptions; risk prediction; screening

Year:  2019        PMID: 31631776      PMCID: PMC7335264          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19875966

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  53 in total

1.  When the average applies to no one: personalized decision making about potential benefits of lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; Michael K Gould
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Women's understanding of the mammography screening debate.

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; S J Byram; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-05-22

3.  Preventing Lung Cancer Mortality by Computed Tomography Screening: The Effect of Risk-Based Versus U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Eligibility Criteria, 2005-2015.

Authors:  Li C Cheung; Hormuzd A Katki; Anil K Chaturvedi; Ahmedin Jemal; Christine D Berg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 4.  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

5.  Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Peter H Schwartz; Susan M Perkins; Karen K Schmidt; Paul F Muriello; Sandra Althouse; Susan M Rawl
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population.

Authors:  Susan L Davids; Marilyn M Schapira; Timothy L McAuliffe; Ann B Nattinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 7.  Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence.

Authors:  Paul K J Han
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  Development and validation of a personalized, web-based decision aid for lung cancer screening using mixed methods: a study protocol.

Authors:  Yan Kwan Lau; Tanner J Caverly; Sarah T Cherng; Pianpian Cao; Mindy West; Douglas Arenberg; Rafael Meza
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2014-12-19

9.  Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe?

Authors:  Lisa Carter-Harris; DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa; Nasser Hanna; Susan M Rawl
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps.

Authors:  Pamela M Marcus; Nora Pashayan; Timothy R Church; V Paul Doria-Rose; Michael K Gould; Rebecca A Hubbard; Michael Marrone; Diana L Miglioretti; Paul D Pharoah; Paul F Pinsky; Katherine A Rendle; Hilary A Robbins; Megan C Roberts; Betsy Rolland; Mark Schiffman; Jasmin A Tiro; Ann G Zauber; Deborah M Winn; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  1 in total

1.  How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Kea Turner; M Patricia Rivera; Daniel S Reuland; Jennifer Elston Lafata
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 9.410

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.