Incidental Findings in a Decentralized Lung Cancer Screening Program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Janssen K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6812160 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Incidental Findings in a Decentralized Lung Cancer Screening Program.
Janssen Katherine K Schertz Kelsey K Rubin Nathan N Begnaud Abbie A
Annals of the American Thoracic Society 20190901 9
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires decision aid use for lung cancer screening (LCS) shared decision-making. However, it does not require information about incidental findings, a potential harm of screening.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of incidental findings information in an LCS decision aid on screening intent as well as knowledge and valuing of screening benefits and harms.DesignRandomized controlled trial conducted online between July 16, 2020, and August 22, 2020.ParticipantsAdults 55-80 years, eligible for LCS.InterventionLCS video decision aid including information on incidental findings or a control video decision aid.Main measuresIntent to undergo LCS; knowledge regarding the benefit and harms of LCS using six knowledge questions; and valuing of six benefits and harms using rating (1-5 scale, 5 most important) and ranking (ranked 1-6) exercises.Key resultsOf 427 eligible individuals approached, 348 (83.1%) completed the study (173 intervention, 175 control). Mean age was 64.5 years, 48.6% were male, 73.0% white, 76.3% with less than a college degree, and 64.1% with income < $50,000. There was no difference between the intervention and controls in percentage intending to pursue screening (70/173, 40.5% vs 73/175, 41.7%, diff 1.2%, 95% CI - 9.1 to 11.5%, p = 0.81). Intervention participants had a higher percentage of correct answers for the incidental findings knowledge than controls (164/173, 94.8% vs 129/175, 73.7%, 95% CI - 28.4 to - 13.8%, p < 0.01). Incidental findings had the fifth highest mean importance rating (4.0 ± 1.1) and the third highest mean ranking (3.6 ± 1.5). There was no difference in mean rating or ranking of incidental findings between intervention and control groups (rating 4.0 vs 3.9, diff 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2, 0.3, p = 0.51; ranking 3.6 vs 3.6, diff 0.02, 95% CI - 0.3, 0.3, p = 0.89).ConclusionsIncidental findings information in a LCS decision aid did not affect LCS intent, but it resulted in more informed individuals regarding these findings. In formulating screening preferences, incidental findings were less important than other benefits and harms.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432753.
| S-EPMC9585131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a "lung health check" (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.
| S-EPMC8184811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScreening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation.MethodsA multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council.ResultsNine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements.ConclusionsThis European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible.
| S-EPMC10876118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current clinical management of lung nodule patients is inefficient and therefore causes patient misclassification, which increases healthcare expenses. A precise and robust lung nodule classifier could minimise healthcare costs and discomfort for patients. http://bit.ly/2oMIEwQ.
| S-EPMC6885334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that individuals at high risk for lung cancer consider benefits and harms before pursuing lung cancer screening. Medical centers develop websites for their lung cancer screening programs, but to date little is known about the websites' portrayal of benefits and harms or what next steps they recommend for individuals considering screening.ObjectiveTo assess the presentation of potential benefits and harms and recommended next steps on lung cancer screening program websites.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional content analysis of 162 lung cancer screening program websites of academic medical centers (n = 81) and state-matched community medical centers (n = 81) that were randomly selected from American College of Radiology lung cancer screening-designated centers was conducted. The study was performed from December 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresWebsite presentation of screening-associated benefits and harms was the primary outcome. Benefit was defined as any description related to the potential reduction in lung cancer mortality. Harms were based on the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and included false positives, false negatives, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. The secondary outcome was next steps that are recommended by websites.ResultsOverall, the 162 lung cancer screening program websites described the potential benefits more frequently than they described any potential harms (159 [98%] vs 78 [48%], P < .01). False-positive findings were the most frequently reported (72 [44%]) potential harm. Community centers were less likely than academic centers to report any potential harm (32 [40%] vs 46 [57%], P = .03), potential harm from radiation (20 [25%] vs 35 [43%], P = .01), and overdiagnosis (0% vs 11 [14%], P < .01). One hundred nineteen websites (73%) did not explicitly recommend that individuals personally consider the potential benefits and harms of screening; community centers were less likely than academic centers to give this recommendation (15 [19%] vs 28 [35%], P = .02). Most institutions (157 [97%]) listed follow-up steps for screening, but few institutions (35 [22%]) recommended that individuals discuss benefits and harms with a health care professional.Conclusions and relevanceInformation on public-facing websites of US lung cancer screening programs appears to lack balance with respect to portrayal of potential benefits and harms of screening. Important harms, such as overdiagnosis, were commonly ignored in the sites evaluated, and most of the centers did not explicitly guide individuals toward a guideline-recommended, shared decision-making discussion of harms and benefits.
| S-EPMC7154949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeUsing single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip and exome sequence data from individuals participating in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Undiagnosed Diseases Program (UDP), we evaluated the number and therapeutic informativeness of incidental pharmacogenetic variants.MethodsPharmacogenomics Knowledgebase (PharmGKB) annotated sequence variants were identified in 1,101 individuals. Medication records of participants were used to identify individuals prescribed medications with a genetic variant that might alter efficacy.ResultsA total of 395 sequence variants, including 19 PharmGKB 1A and 1B variants, were identified in SNP chip sequence data, and 388 variants, including 21 PharmGKB 1A and 1B variants, were identified in the exome sequence data. Nine participants had incidental pharmacogenetic variants associated with altered efficacy of a prescribed medication.ConclusionsDespite the small size of the NIH UDP patient cohort, we identified pharmacogenetic incidental findings potentially useful for guiding therapy. Consequently, groups conducting clinical genomic studies might consider reporting of pharmacogenetic incidental findings.Genet Med 18 12, 1303-1307.
| S-EPMC5133159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Asymptomatic blastomycosis infections are rarely identified or described in the literature, but are believed to comprise 50% of cases. In this report we describe five sporadic cases of blastomycosis in asymptomatic patients. All of these cases were initially identified as incidental findings of lung nodules on CXR or CT. To our knowledge, these are the first detailed descriptions of asymptomatic blastomycosis, occurring as sporadic disease, in the literature.
| S-EPMC6076388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncidental respiratory disease-related findings are frequently observed on low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screenings. This study analyzed data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to assess the relationship between such findings and respiratory disease mortality (RDM), excluding lung cancer.Research questionAre incidental respiratory findings on LDCT scanning associated with increased RDM?Study design and methodsSubjects in the NLST LDCT arm received three annual screens. Trial radiologists noted findings related to possible lung cancer, as well as respiratory-related incidental findings. Demographic characteristics, smoking history, and medical history were captured in a baseline questionnaire. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess cumulative RDM. Multivariate proportional hazards models were used to assess risk factors for RDM; in addition to incidental CT scan findings, variables included respiratory disease history (COPD/emphysema, and asthma), smoking history, and demographic factors (age, race, sex, and BMI).ResultsOf 26,722 subjects in the NLST LDCT arm, 25,002 received the baseline screen and a subsequent LDCT screen. Overall, 59% were male, 26.5% were aged ≥ 65 years at baseline, and 10.6% reported a history of COPD/emphysema. Emphysema on LDCT scanning was reported in 30.7% of subjects at baseline and in 44.2% at any screen. Of those with emphysema on baseline LDCT scanning, 18% reported a history of COPD/emphysema. Median mortality follow-up was 10.3 years. There were 3,639 deaths, and 708 were from respiratory diseases. Among subjects with no history of COPD/emphysema, 10-year cumulative RDM ranged from 3.9% for subjects with emphysema and reticular opacities to 1.1% for those with neither condition; the corresponding range among subjects with a COPD/emphysema history was 17.3% (both) to 3.7% (neither). Emphysema on LDCT imaging was associated with a significantly elevated RDM hazard ratio (2.27; 95% CI, 1.92-2.7) in the multivariate model. Reticular opacities (including honeycombing/fibrosis/scar) also had a significantly elevated hazard ratio (1.39; 95% CI, 1.19-1.62).InterpretationIncidental respiratory disease-related findings observed on NLST LDCT screens were frequent and associated with increased mortality from respiratory diseases.
| S-EPMC9005861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have facilitated multi-gene panel (MGP) testing to detect germline DNA variants in hereditary cancer patients. This sensitive technique can uncover unexpected, non-germline incidental findings indicative of mosaicism, clonal hematopoiesis (CH), or hematologic malignancies. A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify cases of incidental findings from NGS-MGP testing. Inclusion criteria included: 1) multiple pathogenic variants in the same patient; 2) pathogenic variants at a low allele fraction; and/or 3) the presence of pathogenic variants not consistent with family history. Secondary tissue analysis, complete blood count (CBC) and medical record review were conducted to further delineate the etiology of the pathogenic variants. Of 6060 NGS-MGP tests, 24 cases fulfilling our inclusion criteria were identified. Pathogenic variants were detected in TP53, ATM, CHEK2, BRCA1 and APC. 18/24 (75.0%) patients were classified as CH, 3/24 (12.5%) as mosaic, 2/24 (8.3%) related to a hematologic malignancy, and 1/24 (4.2%) as true germline. We describe a case-specific workflow to identify and interpret the nature of incidental findings on NGS-MGP. This workflow will provide oncology and genetic clinics a practical guide for the management and counselling of patients with unexpected NGS-MGP findings.
| S-EPMC8289933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prevalence of incidental nonneoplastic lung disease in patients undergoing resection for mass lesions is unknown. We determined the prevalence and characteristics of parenchymal findings in patients with lung nodules, aiming to increase awareness of findings that could potentially impact patient management. A total of 397 patients with benign or malignant mass lesions with available presurgical chest computed tomography scans resected between January 2001 and July 2015 were included. Retrospective histologic assessment of parenchymal abnormalities in at least 1 section of grossly normal lung was performed for each case by 2 pulmonary pathologists and correlated with original pathology reports, clinical history, and radiologic findings. A total of 233 women and 164 men underwent resections for carcinomas (78%) or benign nodules (22%). One hundred one (25%) patients showed parenchymal abnormalities, including 14 patients with multiple findings. The most common abnormal findings were fibrotic interstitial changes (10%), including usual interstitial pneumonia (1%), followed by granulomatous processes (8%). Other findings included aspiration (4%), intravascular thrombi (2%), Langerhans cell histiocytosis (1.5%), constrictive bronchiolitis (1%), atypical lymphoid infiltrates (1%), and amyloidosis (0.5%). Abnormalities were more likely to have been documented in the original pathology report by pulmonary pathologists (68%) than by general pathologists (15%) (P < .0001). Cases with histologic parenchymal abnormalities were more likely to show radiologic interstitial lung abnormalities than those without (16% versus 5%; P = .001). Evaluation of background lung parenchyma may yield valuable and unanticipated information in patients undergoing surgical resections for lung masses that may correlate with radiographic interstitial lung abnormalities and influence clinical management.
| S-EPMC6492265 | biostudies-literature