Current lung cancer screening practice amongst general practitioners in Western Australia: a cross-sectional study

Current and Future Perspectives on Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Roadmap From 2023 to 2027 From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting.

Screening Practices, Knowledge and Adherence Among Health Care Professionals at a Tertiary Care Hospital

Introduction

Screening, a routine procedure done on individuals with or without disease, results in the early detection of disease. The aim of this study was to assess healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) level of knowledge related to and the adherence to screening.

Methods

A survey was conducted in HCPs, using a self-administered questionnaire. Knowledge was defined based on the correct or incorrect responses to the questions. Adherence to screening was considered if a test was done at least once in the past one year.

Results

Of the 379 participants, 61% were nurses, 34% physicians, and 5% pharmacists. The majority 68.78% were female. The average age of pharmacists was 29.17±7.09, physicians 35.57±10.08, and nurses 35.46±8.63 years. The knowledge related to breast cancer screening ranged between 50% and 57% and of a Pap smear, 41–54%. 94% nurses and 90% pharmacists had recorded an incorrect response to the required age of colon cancer screening. The overall screening adherence to diabetes was 46%, hypertension 68%, liver profile 43%, lipid profile 50%, breast cancer 10.38%, Pap smear 26%, prostate cancer 33%, and colon cancer 2.37%. HCPs aged ≥45 years had good adherence to diabetes screening. Pharmacists (88%) had the highest level of adherence to hypertension screening. Female HCPs poorly adhered to breast 38% and cervical cancer 26% screening. Only a third 33% of males, aged > 50 years, were screened for prostate cancer. Among HCPs aged ≥50 years (n=32), only three were screened for colon cancer.

Conclusion

Despite the increased incidence of diabetes, breast and colon cancer in Saudi Arabia, HCPs displayed poor knowledge related to screening. The adherence to diabetes screening was good. However, HCPs in a high-risk group displayed poor adherence to screening, specifically for breast, cervical and colon cancer. The medical and cancer screening guidelines should be made available to all HCPs regardless of their specialty.

Development and evaluation of a consumer information resource, including Patient Decision Aid, for lung cancer screening: a quasi-experimental study

Lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals with computed tomography is a promising intervention to reduce lung cancer mortality. Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) may assist eligible individuals assess the risks and benefits associated with screening. Screening preference is high among lower-risk, screening-ineligible individuals and strategies are needed to reduce screening demand among this group. We developed and evaluated a resource comprising a recruitment pamphlet combined with either a PtDA for screening-eligible individuals or an education pamphlet for screening-ineligible individuals. Quasi-experimental pre-post pamphlet exposure design. Ever-smokers aged 55-80 years attending hospital outpatient clinics were invited. Among screening-eligible participants, the assessed outcome was change in score on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Among screening-ineligible participants, the assessed outcomes were change in screening preference. In the study 51% (55/107) of invited individuals participated, with mean ± standard deviation age 66.9 ± 6.4 years, 53% (29/55) male, and 65% (36/55) eligible for screening. Median (interquartile range) DCS among screening-eligible participants reduced from 28.9 (22.7-45.3) pre-PtDA to 25 (1.6-29.7) post-PtDA (p < .001), but there was no significant change in the proportion that reached the accepted threshold for decisional certainty (DCS < 25, 10/36 [28%] pre-exposure vs. 14/36 [39%] post-exposure, p = .1). Screening preference among screening-ineligible individuals reduced after viewing the screening-ineligible brochure (pre-exposure median of "Prefer" to post-exposure median of "Unsure," p = .001). Our consumer information pamphlets about lung cancer screening may reduce decisional conflict and improve alignment of screening preference with eligibility.

Australia-wide cross-sectional survey of general practitioners' knowledge and practice of lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer deaths in high-risk individuals, yet current Australian guidelines do not recommend screening. Little is known about current screening practices in Australia.

AIM

To evaluate the proportion of general practitioners who report ordering lung cancer screening for their patients, identify factors associated with ordering lung cancer screening and assess general practitioners (GP) rationale for recommending screening and preference of composition of any future national targeted screening programme.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to a nationally representative sample of 4000 Australian GP. The questionnaire included respondent demographics, self-reported screening practices, knowledge of screening recommendations, recent screening education, preference for recruitment methodologies for potential screening programmes and potential factors influencing the screening practices of GP. Two logistic regression models identified factors associated with self-reported chest X-ray (CXR) and LDCT screening within the past 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 323 GP completed the survey (participation rate 8.1%). Participants were mostly females (50.6%), from collective/group (79.1%) and metropolitan-based practices (73.5%). Despite the majority of responders understanding that screening is not recommended by Australian professional societies (71.2%), a substantial proportion of participants requested a CXR or LDCT screening (46.4% and 20.8% respectively). A variety of shared (GP reassurance, affordability of screening, believing screening is funded) and unique practice, educational and cognitive factors were associated with self-reported LDCT and CXR screening, with the strongest association being recent education about screening from radiology practices (odds ratio (aOR) for LDCT screening 10.4, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In Australia, lung cancer screening occurs outside a coordinated programme, and there is discordance between practice and national recommendations. This highlights an urgent need for clearer guidance from national and professional bodies.

The impact of perceived risk, screening eligibility and worry on preference for lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey

Lung cancer screening is effective at reducing lung cancer deaths when individuals at greatest risk are screened. Recruitment initiatives target all current and former smokers, of whom only some are eligible for screening, potentially leading to discordance between screening preference and eligibility in ineligible individuals. The objective of the present study was to identify factors associated with preference for screening among ever-smokers. Ever-smokers aged 55-80 years attending outpatient clinics at three Australian hospitals were invited. The survey recorded: 1) demographics; 2) objective lung cancer risk and screening eligibility using the Prostate Lung Colon Ovarian 2012 risk model; and 3) perceived lung cancer risk, worry about and seriousness of lung cancer using a validated questionnaire. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression identified predictors of screening preference. The survey was completed by 283 individuals (response rate 27%). Preference for screening was high (72%) with no significant difference between low-dose computed tomography screening-eligible and -ineligible individuals (77% versus 68%, p=0.11). Worry about lung cancer (adjusted-proportional odds ratio (adj-OR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.08-1.58; p=0.007) and perceived seriousness of lung cancer (adj-OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05-1.64; p=0.02) were associated with higher preference for lung cancer screening while screening eligibility was not. The concept of "early detection" was the most important driver to have screening while practical obstacles like difficulty travelling to the scan or taking time off work were the least important barriers to screening. Most current or former smokers prefer to undergo screening. Worry about lung cancer and perceived seriousness of the diagnosis are more important drivers for screening preference than eligibility status.