Reply to Wilson: Improving Lung Cancer Screening Uptake.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Quaife SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7560797 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7560805 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7781119 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11220562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveGiven the higher rates of tobacco use along with increased mortality specific to lung cancer in rural settings, low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening could be particularly beneficial to such populations. However, limited radiology facilities and increased geographical distance, combined with lower income and education along with reduced patient engagement, present heightened barriers to screening initiation and adherence.MethodsIn collaboration with community leaders and stakeholders, we developed and implemented a community-based lung cancer screening program, including telephone-based navigation and tobacco cessation counseling support, serving 18 North Texas counties. Funding was available to support clinical services costs where needed. We collected data on LDCT referrals, orders, and completion.ResultsTo raise awareness for lung cancer screening, we leveraged our established collaborative network of more than 700 community partners. In the first year of operation, 107 medical providers referred 570 patients for lung cancer screening, of whom 488 (86%) were eligible for LDCT. The most common reasons for ineligibility were age (43%) and insufficient tobacco history (20%). Of 381 ordered LDCTs, 334 (88%) were completed. Among screened patients, 61% were current smokers and 36% had insurance coverage for the procedure. The program cost per patient was $430.DiscussionImplementation, uptake, and completion of LDCT-based lung cancer screening is feasible in rural settings. Community outreach, health promotion, and algorithm-based navigation may support such efforts. Given low lung cancer screening rates nationally and heightened lung cancer risk in rural populations, similar programs in other regions may be particularly impactful.
| S-EPMC8923939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment.
| S-EPMC7509385 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9270318 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC487778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of psychological burden in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials may lack generalisability due to participation bias and control arms having elevated distress.MethodsCurrent and former smokers (n=787, aged 60-75) within a real-world screening demonstration pilot completed measures of lung cancer worry at three time points (T0: appointment, T1: next day, T2: 3 months) and anxiety and depression at two time points (T0 and T2). A 'screening unaware' community sample (n=383) with the same age and smoking characteristics completed these measures once (T0). Mean scores were compared by sample type and LDCT result.ResultsCompared with the community sample (T0), mean scores were higher in the screening sample, and statistically significantly increased in adjusted analyses, for lung cancer worry at T0 and T2 (mean (M): 9.32; 95% CI 8.96 to 9.69 vs M: 11.34; 11.09 to 11.59 and M: 11.88; 11.49 to 12.27), for anxiety at T0 and T2 (M: 3.32; 2.94 to 3.70 vs M: 4.73; 4.42 to 5.04 and M: 5.78; 5.33 to 6.23) and depression at T2 (M: 3.85; 3.44 to 4.27 vs M: 4.15; 3.76 to 4.55). Scores were highest for those with indeterminate (eg, T2 anxiety M: 6.93; 5.65 to 8.21) and incidental findings (primary care follow-up M: 5.34; 4.67 to 6.02) and those ineligible for screening (M: 6.51; 5.25 to 7.77). Being female, younger, not in paid employment, not married/cohabiting with a partner and lower education predicted poorer psychological outcomes at T0, but not T2 after adjusting for baseline scores. Mean scores remained within 'normal' clinical ranges.ConclusionPsychological distress was raised among high-risk individuals undergoing LDCT screening in a real-world setting, but overall differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. It will be critical to monitor the psychological impact of services longitudinally across diverse settings, including subgroups vulnerable to clinically elevated distress.Trial registrationThe Lung Screen Uptake Trial was registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy (ISRCTN) (Number: ISRCTN21774741) on 23 September 2015 and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02558101) on 22 September 2015.
| S-EPMC7677470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegular screening reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, has a regional screening programme offering faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) or colonoscopy. Participation in the screening programme has been low, particularly among complex patients. Patient navigation has strong evidence for increasing the CRC screening rate.Design and objectiveThis feasibility study tested patient navigation performed by medical assistants for complex patients at an academic primary care practice.Baseline measurementsA review of 328 patients' medical charts revealed that 51% were up-to-date with screening (16% within the programme), 24% were ineligible, 5% had a documented refusal and 20% were not up-to-date, of whom 58 (18%) were complex patients. INTERVENTION FEBRUARY 2023 TO MAY 2023: We tried to help complex patients participate in the screening programme using either in-person or telephone patient navigation. Each intervention was piloted by a physician-researcher and then performed by a medical assistant. Based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance framework, we collected: Intervention participation and refusal, screening acceptance and completion and both patients and medical assistant acceptability (ie, qualitative interviews).ResultsOnly 4/58 (7%) patients participated in the in-person patient navigation test phase due to scheduling problems. All four patients accepted a prescription and 2/4 (50%) completed their test. We piloted a telephone intervention to bypass scheduling issues but all patients refused a telephone discussion with the medical assistant. At two months after the last intervention, the proportion of patients up-to-date increased from 51% to 56%.ConclusionOur overall approach was resource-intensive and had little impact on the overall participation rate. It was likely not sustainable. New approaches and reimbursement for a specific patient navigator role are needed to increase CRC screening of complex patients.
| S-EPMC11367402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends lung cancer screening via annual low dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high risk patients. Despite the strong evidence of a mortality benefit from several randomized clinical trials, rates of lung cancer screening remain low. We plan to assess how screening guidelines are implemented in a radiation oncology clinic for patients with head and neck cancer. Methods A single institution, retrospective chart review was used to identify patients with head and neck cancer seen in a radiation oncology clinic who were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening under the current USPSTF guidelines. Patients who were potentially screening-eligible were enrolled in a phone survey to assess their knowledge about lung cancer screening and willingness to be screened. Results Of the 184 patients with head and neck cancer seen in the clinic, 8 (4%) patients were eligible for lung cancer screening under the previous USPSTF recommendations, including 1 (0.5%) patient already being screened. One patient (0.5%) became eligible under the expanded guidelines. All 184 patients had smoking history documented. Of the 87 current or former smokers, there were 24 (28%) who did not have pack-years documented; of the 82 former smokers, there were 8 (10%) who did not have quit date documented. Among the 16 phone survey participants (response rate: 70%) only 6 (38%) were aware there is a way to screen for lung cancer and 12 (75%) patients would be interested in screening if they are found to be eligible. Conclusions These findings highlight a potential opportunity to increase rates of lung cancer screening among patients with head and neck cancer by both enhancing provider awareness as well as patient education at the community level.
| S-EPMC9840013 | biostudies-literature