Francys C Verdial1, David K Madtes2, Guang-Shing Cheng2, Sudhakar Pipavath3, Richard Kim4, Jesse J Hubbard5, Megan Zadworny1, Douglas E Wood1, Farhood Farjah6. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Renton, WA. 5. Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: ffarjah@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Each year, > 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidentally detected lung nodule. Practice guidelines attempt to balance the benefit of early detection of lung cancer with the risks of diagnostic testing, but adherence to guidelines is low. The goal of this study was to determine guideline adherence rates in the setting of a multidisciplinary nodule clinic and describe reasons for nonadherence as well as associated outcomes. METHODS: This cohort study included 3 years of follow-up of patients aged ≥ 35 years with an incidentally detected lung nodule evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic that used the 2005 Fleischner Society Guidelines. RESULTS: Among 113 patients, 67% (95% CI, 58-76) were recommended a guideline-concordant nodule evaluation; 7.1% (95% CI, 3.1-13) and 26% (95% CI, 18-25) were recommended less or more intense evaluation, respectively. In contrast, 58% (95% CI, 48-67), 22% (95% CI, 18-25), and 23% (95% CI, 16-32) received a guideline-concordant, less intense, or more intense evaluation. The most common reason for recommending guideline-discordant care was concern for two different diagnoses that would each benefit from early detection and treatment. A majority of lung cancer diagnoses (88%) occurred in patients who received guideline-concordant care. There were no lung cancer cases in those who received less intense nodule care. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary nodule clinic may serve as a system-level intervention to promote guideline-concordant care, while also providing a multidisciplinary basis by which to deviate from guidelines to address the needs of a heterogeneous patient population.
BACKGROUND: Each year, > 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidentally detected lung nodule. Practice guidelines attempt to balance the benefit of early detection of lung cancer with the risks of diagnostic testing, but adherence to guidelines is low. The goal of this study was to determine guideline adherence rates in the setting of a multidisciplinary nodule clinic and describe reasons for nonadherence as well as associated outcomes. METHODS: This cohort study included 3 years of follow-up of patients aged ≥ 35 years with an incidentally detected lung nodule evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic that used the 2005 Fleischner Society Guidelines. RESULTS: Among 113 patients, 67% (95% CI, 58-76) were recommended a guideline-concordant nodule evaluation; 7.1% (95% CI, 3.1-13) and 26% (95% CI, 18-25) were recommended less or more intense evaluation, respectively. In contrast, 58% (95% CI, 48-67), 22% (95% CI, 18-25), and 23% (95% CI, 16-32) received a guideline-concordant, less intense, or more intense evaluation. The most common reason for recommending guideline-discordant care was concern for two different diagnoses that would each benefit from early detection and treatment. A majority of lung cancer diagnoses (88%) occurred in patients who received guideline-concordant care. There were no lung cancer cases in those who received less intense nodule care. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary nodule clinic may serve as a system-level intervention to promote guideline-concordant care, while also providing a multidisciplinary basis by which to deviate from guidelines to address the needs of a heterogeneous patient population.
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: James Simmons; Michael K Gould; Jonathan Iaccarino; Christopher G Slatore; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Nichole T Tanner; Alexander Porter; Michael K Gould; Xiao-Jun Li; Anil Vachani; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Michael K Gould; James Fletcher; Mark D Iannettoni; William R Lynch; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; David E Ost Journal: Chest Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Ronilda Lacson; Luciano M Prevedello; Katherine P Andriole; Ritu Gill; Jennifer Lenoci-Edwards; Christopher Roy; Tejal K Gandhi; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Michael K Gould; Jessica Donington; William R Lynch; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410