Dataset Information

Evaluation of a lung cancer screening programme attracting a cohort to actively participate in screening: Honghe Lung Cancer Medical Center Programme

ABSTRACT:

Background

A lung cancer screening project was conducted by attracting active participation to evaluate its feasibility and effectiveness in areas with poor basic medical education.

Methods

This project entailed a prospective, single-arm study which was conducted by means of delivering a lecture on lung cancer at the Honghe Lung Cancer Medical Center to attract public attention and attendance from 28 November 2020 to 21 December 2021. A questionnaire comprising 7 high-risk factors was completed by participants to identify high-risk individuals for further chest low-dose computed tomography examination. Non calcified nodules with a diameter ≥5 mm were deemed positive nodules. The positive nodules were discussed by a multidisciplinary team and treatment suggestions were given. Finally, we analyzed participant information, examination adherence, lung cancer detection rate, and staging.

Results

A total of 6,121 individuals were attracted to the project, and 5,925 (96.8%) agreed to participate. Of these, 5,889 (99.4%) completed the survey, with 4,627 (78.6%) in the high-risk group and 1,262 (21.4%) in the non-high-risk group. The proportion of males in the high-risk group was higher than that in the non-high-risk group, and the difference was statistically significant among those aged 40–49 years, 50–59, years and 60–69 years; P<0.01. In the high-risk population, 4,536 (98.0%) of participants adhered to examination, among whom 2,007 (44.2%) with positive nodules, 1,220 (26.9%) with negative nodules, and 1,309 (28.9%) without nodules showed statistical differences in age; P<0.01. The detection rate of lung cancer was 2.2% (99/4,536); 94.0% (93/99) of whom were stage 0–I patients.

Conclusions

A health lecture-based approach to improving public participation in regions with poor health education is likely to be effective in promoting the early detection of lung cancer.

SUBMITTER: Li C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9834595 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality. We sought to assess lung cancer screening practices and attitudes among primary care providers (PCPs) in the era of new LDCT screening guidelines.In 2013, we surveyed PCPs at an academic medical center (60% response) and assessed: lung cancer screening use, perceived screening effectiveness, knowledge of screening guidelines, perceived barriers to LDCT use, and interest in LDCT screening education.Few PCPs (n = 212) reported ordering lung cancer screening: chest X-ray (21%), LDCT (12%), and sputum cytology (3%). Only 47% of providers knew three or more of six guideline components for LDCT screening; 24% did not know any guideline components. In multiple logistic regression analysis, providers who knew three or more guideline components were more likely to order LDCT (OR, 7.1; 95% confidence intervals, 2.0-25.6). Many providers (30%) were unsure of the effectiveness of LDCT. Mammography, colonoscopy, and Pap smear were rated more frequently as effective in reducing cancer mortality compared with LDCT (all P values < 0.0001). Common perceived barriers included patient cost (86.9% major or minor barrier), harm from false positives (82.7%), patients' lack of awareness (81.3%), risk of incidental findings (81.3%), and insurance coverage (80.1%).LDCT lung cancer screening is currently an uncommon practice at an academic medical center. PCPs report ordering chest X-ray, a nonrecommended screening test, more often than LDCT. PCPs had a limited understanding of lung cancer screening guidelines and LDCT effectiveness. Provider educational interventions are needed to facilitate shared decision-making with patients.This study describes some of the first data available about PCPs' use of lung cancer screening tests since the publication of multiple professional guidelines endorsing LDCT. Knowledge gaps were identified that may hinder the uptake of evidence-based lung cancer screening guidelines.

Project description:ObjectivesColorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes are commonly challenged by low uptake, limiting their potential to reduce CRC burden. We aimed to investigate anxiety levels related to the decision to participate or not in CRC screening among screening participants and non-participants. Further to explore associations between higher anxiety levels related to the decision and individuals' characteristics.DesignA nationwide cross-sectional study conducted with individuals included in a national randomised controlled CRC screening trial, the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO).ParticipantsA total of 1409 individuals, 60-62 years, recruited from SCREESCO during 2015-2016 participated in the study; 1256 had participated in CRC screening (faecal immunochemical test: n=958; colonoscopy: n=298) and 153 had declined screening participation.MeasuresAnxiety levels were assessed with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) S-Anxiety Scale. Health literacy (HL) was assessed with the Swedish Functional and Communicative and Critical Health Literacy Scales.ResultsAltogether, 79% of survey participants reported lower anxiety levels regarding their CRC screening decision (STAI S-Anxiety <40). Anxiety levels did not differ between screening participants and non-participants (mean STAI S-Anxiety score=34.1 vs 33.9, p=0.859). The odds of reporting higher anxiety levels increased by female sex (OR=1.37; CI 1.04 to 1.80; p=0.025) and previous faecal sampling (OR=1.53; CI 1.14 to 2.05; p=0.004), and decreased if living with partner (OR=0.65; CI 0.48 to 0.88; p=0.005), working (OR=0.72; CI 0.53 to 0.96; p=0.027) or having sufficient HL (functional: OR=0.49; CI 0.33 to 0.73, p≤0.001; communicative and critical: OR=0.55; CI 0.38 to 0.82; p=0.003).ConclusionsAnxiety levels did not differ between screening participants and non-participants. Higher anxiety scores were associated with certain characteristics. Interventions accounting for these characteristics can be applied to reduce anxiety and facilitate programme acceptance.Trial registration numberNCT02078804; Results.

Project description:PurposeOptimal approaches for tobacco treatment counseling among individuals who currently smoke and are undergoing shared decision-making (SDM) and lung cancer screening (LCS) are unknown. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the rate of reported interest in tobacco treatment counseling and pharmacotherapy among individuals who currently smoke and are receiving integrated nurse navigation for LCS and tobacco treatment in a centralized LCS Program.MethodsWe identified individuals undergoing SDM through our centralized LCS Program between March 2021 and March 2022. The LCS Program tobacco treatment protocol includes counseling both in-person and via telephone during SDM, LCS results review, and an optional 4-week follow-up. Sociodemographic and clinical data for currently smoking individuals participating in LCS were extracted from the LCS Registry.ResultsAmong 1034 individuals undergoing LCS through the centralized program, 605 were currently smoking and comprised the study cohort. Nearly half (49.8%) reported interest in tobacco treatment counseling and pharmacotherapy and received a personalized treatment plan. On multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with expressing interest in treatment included African-American/Black race, higher educational attainment, and returning visit type. Among the 301 individuals expressing interest in tobacco treatment, 35 (11.6%) had documentation of self-reported smoking cessation in the electronic health record. Successful smoking cessation for any length of time was significantly associated with receiving at least one longitudinal tobacco cessation counseling telephone call.ConclusionsIn a centralized LCS Program offering tobacco treatment integrated with screening services, race, education, and visit type were significantly associated with expressing interest in tobacco treatment counseling and pharmacotherapy, while longitudinal tobacco counseling telephone calls were associated with smoking cessation. Randomized controlled trials are needed to test whether this integrated strategy leads to LCS- and tobacco-related outcomes.