Perceptions of lung cancer risk and beliefs in screening accuracy of spiral computed tomography among high-risk lung cancer family members

Patient Experience of Managing Adherence to Repeat Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is a process involving multiple low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans over multiple years. While adherence to recommended follow-up is critical in reducing lung cancer mortality, little is known about factors influencing adherence following the initial LDCT scan. The purpose of this study was to examine patients’ and providers’ depictions of continued screening and their understandings of patients’ decisions to return for follow-up. Qualitative methodology involves interviews with patients about their understanding of the screening process and perceptions of lung cancer risk, including motivations to adhere to follow-up screening and surveillance. Analysis of interview transcripts followed the general procedures of grounded theory methodology. Patient adherence to LCS was influenced by their understanding of the process of screening, and their expectations for the next steps. Perceptions of lung cancer risk and associated motivation were not static and changed throughout the screening process. Recognizing that patients’ motivations may be dynamic over the course of screening and surveillance will assist providers in helping patients make decisions regarding continued engagement with LCS.

Pilot study of a video intervention to reduce anxiety and promote preparedness for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is associated with a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality. Psychological burden is a potential harm associated with LCS, and is a major barrier to utilization. We aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a video intervention designed to reduce anxiety and promote psychological preparedness of LCS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a two group, sequential enrollment pilot study of a video intervention that integrates information on screen criteria, procedures, benefits and harms, and follow-up plan. Participants were enrolled 1-2 weeks prior to baseline LDCT, and the intervention was administered in one in-person session on the day of LDCT. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (pre-screen), immediately after LDCT, and at 1 week, 3 months, and 7 months post-screen. Outcome measures included the SF-12 (HRQOL), STAI (anxiety), psychosocial consequences of LCS (COS-LC), risk perceptions for lung cancer, and a satisfaction tool. The student's t-test was used for exploratory evaluations on change from baseline scores both within and between groups.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants (8 intervention, 8 controls) enrolled and completed the study (61.5% retention). Participants in the control group reported a significantly increased sense of dejection at 1-month and 7-months post-screen as measured by the COS-LC (p = 0.01). Participants were highly satisfied with the intervention.

CONCLUSION

A video intervention that promoted psychological preparedness for LCS was feasible to implement as part of an LCS program and highly accepted by participants.

Screening for Lung Cancer: Communicating With Patients

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this article are to detail the experience of a single-center academic institution in applying the patient-centered approach to a lung cancer screening program and to examine how this approach can expand to other aspects of follow-up imaging of lung nodules.

CONCLUSION

As the practice of patient-centered radiology gains attention, diagnostic radiologists are findings new ways to become more involved in patient care. A lung cancer screening program is one opportunity for radiologists to consult with and educate patients.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication

BACKGROUND

While discussion continues over the future implementation of lung cancer screening, low participation from higher risk groups could limit the effectiveness of any national screening programme.

OBJECTIVES

To compare smokers' beliefs about lung cancer screening with those of former and never smokers within a low socioeconomic status (SES) sample, to explore the views of lower SES smokers and ex-smokers in-depth, and to provide insights into effective engagement strategies.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using proactive, community-based recruitment methods, we surveyed 175 individuals from socioeconomically deprived communities with high smoking prevalence and subsequently interviewed 21 smokers and ex-smokers. Participants were approached in community settings or responded to a mail-out from their housing association.

RESULTS

Interviewees were supportive of screening in principle, but many were doubtful about its ability to deliver long-term survival benefit for their generation of "heavy smokers." Lung cancer was perceived as an uncontrollable disease, and the survey data showed that fatalism, worry and perceived risk of lung cancer were particularly high among smokers compared with non-smokers. Perceived blame and stigma around lung cancer as a self-inflicted smokers' disease were implicated by interviewees as important social deterrents of screening participation. The belief that lungs are not a treatable organ appeared to be a common lay explanation for poor survival and undermined the potential value of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes towards screening among this high-risk group are complex. Invitation strategies need to be carefully devised to achieve equitable participation in screening.

Psychological Burden Associated With Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose radiation computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality and is recommended for high-risk current and former smokers. Several potential harms associated with LCS have been identified, including the potential for psychological burden. To summarize the current state of the scientific knowledge on psychological burden associated with LCS, we performed a systematic search of the contemporary quantitative and qualitative research literature. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that evaluated the effect of LCS with LDCT on psychological burden and health-related quality of life assessed using validated and nonvalidated measures. PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Scopus were searched for English language articles published between 2004 and January 2015. Data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Thirteen studies were included that met our inclusion criteria. Overall, results were variable with some studies reporting worse psychological burden for patients with indeterminate results at prescreening, after screening, and at short-term follow-up (<6 months after screen). These adverse effects diminished or resolved at long-term follow-up (> 6 months after screen). LCS might be associated with short-term adverse psychological burden, particularly after a false positive result. However, these adverse effects diminished over time. The amount of current evidence is small, with limitations in study design and use of outcome measures. More high-quality research is needed to determine the frequency, duration, and overall magnitude of LCS-related psychological burden in nonclinical trial settings.

Primary Care Provider-Delivered Smoking Cessation Interventions and Smoking Cessation Among Participants in the National Lung Screening Trial

IMPORTANCE

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening.

RESULTS

Delivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Assist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.

A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants

INTRODUCTION

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Cancer Society recently released lung screening guidelines that include smoking cessation counseling for smokers undergoing screening. Previous work indicates that smoking behaviors and risk perceptions of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants were relatively unchanged. We explored American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)/NLST former and current smokers' risk perceptions specifically to (a) determine whether lung screening is a cue for behavior change, (b) elucidate risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, and (c) explore postscreening behavioral intentions and changes.

METHODS

A random sample of 35 participants from 4 ACRIN sites were qualitatively interviewed 1-2 years postscreen. We used a structured interview guide based on Health Belief Model and Self-Regulation Model constructs. Content analyses were conducted with NVivo 8.

RESULTS

Most participants endorsed high-risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, but heightened concern about these risks did not appear to motivate participants to seek screening. Risk perceptions were mostly attributed to participants' heavy smoking histories; former smokers expressed greatly reduced risk. Lung cancer and smoking-related diseases were perceived as very severe although participants endorsed low worry. Current smokers had low confidence in their ability to quit, and none reported quitting following their initial screen.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung screening did not appear to be a behavior change cue to action, and high-risk perceptions did not translate into quitting behaviors. Cognitive and emotional dissonance and avoidance strategies may deter engagement in smoking behavior change. Smoking cessation and prevention interventions during lung screening should explore risk perceptions, emotions, and quit confidence.

Examining whether lung screening changes risk perceptions: National Lung Screening Trial participants at 1-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) research team reported reduced lung cancer mortality among current and former smokers with a minimum 30 pack-year history who were screened with spiral computed tomography scans compared with chest x-rays. The objectives of the current study were to examine, at 1-year follow-up: 1) risk perceptions of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases and behavior change determinants, 2) whether changes in risk perceptions differed by baseline screening result; and 3) whether changes in risk perceptions affected smoking behavior.

METHODS

A 25-item risk perception questionnaire was administered to a subset of participants at 8 American College of Radiology Imaging Network/NLST sites before initial and 1-year follow-up screens. Items assessed risk perceptions of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, cognitive and emotional determinants of behavior change, and knowledge of smoking risks.

RESULTS

Among 430 NLST participants (mean age, 61.0 years; 55.6% men; 91.9% white), half were current smokers at baseline. Overall, risk perceptions and associated cognitive and emotional determinants of behavior change did not change significantly from prescreen trial enrollment to 1-year follow-up and did not differ significantly by screening test result. Changes in risk perceptions were not associated with changes in smoking status (9.7% of participants quit, and 6.6% relapsed) at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung screening did not change participants' risk perceptions of lung cancer or smoking-related disease. A negative screening test, which was the most common screening result, did not appear to decrease risk perceptions nor provide false reassurance to smokers.

Factors influencing receptivity to future screening options for pancreatic cancer in those with and without pancreatic cancer family history

Background

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is considered the most lethal cancer and approximately 10% of PC is hereditary. The purpose of the study was to assess attitudes of at-risk family members with two or more relatives affected with pancreas cancer (PC) toward PC risk and future screening options.

Methods

At-risk family members and primary care controls were surveyed regarding perceived PC risk, PC worry/concern, attitude toward cancer screening, screening test accuracy, and intentions regarding PC screening via blood testing or more invasive endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

Results

PC family members reported greater perceived risk of PC than controls (54% vs. 6%, respectively, p < 0.0001). PC family members also reported higher levels of PC worry/concern than controls (p < 0.0001), although 19% of PC family members indicated they were “not at all concerned” about getting PC. PC family members indicated greater acceptance of a false-negative result on a PC screening test relative to controls (12% vs. 8%, p = 0.02). Both groups reported high (>89%) receptivity to the potential PC screening options presented, though receptivity was greater among PC family members as compared to controls (p < 0.0001) for EUS. In multivariable analyses, degree of PC concern (p < 0.0001) was associated with intention to screen for PC by blood test and EUS, while perceived PC risk was associated with likelihood of undergoing EUS only (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Receptivity to screening options for PC appears high. Clinicians should address behavioral and genetic risk factors for PC and foster appropriate concern regarding PC risk among at-risk individuals.