Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial

The significance of regular chest computed tomography in postoperative surveillance for surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer based on TNM 8th staging system

OBJECTIVES

Although several societies recommend regular chest computed tomography (CT) scans for the surveillance of surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is paucity of evidence to support these statements. This study aimed to clarify whether regular CT scans improved the prognosis of patients with surgically resected NSCLC based on TNM 8th classification.

METHODS

Patients with pathologic Stage 0-III NSCLC who underwent complete surgical resection other than sublobar resection procedures were enrolled in the study. For these patients, clinicopathological data and postoperative surveillance data were collected by the retrospective review of medical records. Patients were categorized into the chest X-ray (CXR) group or the CT group according to whether they were followed-up with basic examinations including CXR or basic examinations plus regular chest CT. Postoperative overall survival was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty five patients were categorized into the CXR (n = 245) and CT (n = 420) groups. The clinicopathological backgrounds did not differ to a statistically significant extent. Recurrence was seen in 68 (27.3%) patients in the CXR group and 117 (27.8%) patients in the CT group. The 5-year overall survival rates of the two groups did not differ to a statistically significant extent (CXR, 76.5%; CT, 78.3%, P = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

Regular chest CT scans may not improve the prognosis of surgically resected NSCLC. Further study is warranted to precisely evaluate the benefit of CT-based postoperative surveillance of NSCLC.

Psychological impact of lung cancer screening using a novel antibody blood test followed by imaging: the ECLS randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Early CDT®-Lung antibody blood test plus serial computed tomography scans for test-positives (TPGs) reduces late-stage lung cancer presentation. This study assessed the psychological outcomes of this approach.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial (n = 12 208) comparing psychological outcomes 1-12 months post-recruitment in a subsample (n = 1032) of TPG, test-negative (TNG) and control groups (CG).

RESULTS

Compared to TNG, TPG had lower positive affect (difference between means (DBM), 3 months (3m: -1.49 (-2.65, - 0.33)), greater impact of worries (DBM 1m: 0.26 (0.05, 0.47); 3m: 0.28 (0.07, 0.50)), screening distress (DBM 1m: 3.59 (2.28, 4.90); 3m: 2.29 (0.97, 3.61); 6m: 1.94 (0.61, 3.27)), worry about tests (odds ratio (OR) 1m: 5.79 (2.66, 12.63) and more frequent lung cancer worry (OR 1m: 2.52 (1.31, 4.83); 3m: 2.43 (1.26, 4.68); 6m: 2.87 (1.48, 5.60)). Compared to CG, TPG had greater worry about tests (OR 1m: 3.40 (1.69, 6.84)). TNG had lower negative affect (log-transformed DBM 3m: -0.08 (-0.13, -0.02)), higher positive affect (DBM 1m: 1.52 (0.43, 2.61); 3m: 1.43 (0.33, 2.53); 6m: 1.27 (0.17, 2.37)), less impact of worries (DBM 3m: -0.27 (-0.48, -0.07)) and less-frequent lung cancer worry (OR 3m: 0.49 (0.26, 0.92)).

CONCLUSIONS

Negative psychological effects in TPG and positive effects in TNG were short-lived and most differences were small.

Impact of vascular screening interventions on perceived threat, efficacy beliefs and behavioural intentions: a systematic narrative review

Health-related behaviours contribute to the global burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cardiovascular imaging can be used to screen asymptomatic individuals for increased risk of CVD to enable earlier interventions to promote health-related behaviours to prevent or reduce CVD risk. Some theories of behaviour and behaviour change assume that engagement in a given behaviour is a function of individual threat appraisals, beliefs regarding the performance of behaviour, self-efficacy for performing the desired behaviour and/or dispositions to act (e.g. behavioural intentions). To date, little is known about the impact of cardiovascular imaging interventions on these constructs. This article summarises evidence related to perceived threat, efficacy beliefs, and behavioural intentions after CVD screening. We identified 10 studies (2 RCTs and 8 non-randomised studies, n = 2498) through a combination of screening citations from published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and searching electronic databases. Of these, 7 measured behavioural intentions and perceived susceptibility and 3 measured efficacy beliefs. Findings showed largely encouraging effects of screening interventions on bolstering self-efficacy beliefs and strengthening behavioural intentions. Imaging results that suggest the presence of coronary or carotid artery disease also increased perceived susceptibility to CVD. However, the review also identified some gaps in the literature, such as a lack of guiding theoretical frameworks and assessments of critical determinants of health-related behaviours. By carefully considering the key issues highlighted in this review, we can make significant strides towards reducing CVD risks and improving population health.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Lung Cancer: A Review for Clinicians

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer are common global causes of morbidity and mortality. Because both diseases share several predisposing risks, the 2 diseases may occur concurrently in susceptible individuals. The diagnosis of COPD has important implications for the diagnostic approach and treatment options if lesions concerning for lung cancer are identified during screening. Importantly, the presence of COPD has significant implications on prognosis and management of patients with lung cancer. In this monograph, we review the mechanistic linkage between lung cancer and COPD, the impact of lung cancer screening on patients at risk, and the implications of the presence of COPD on the approach to the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. This manuscript succinctly reviews the epidemiology and common pathogenetic factors for the concurrence of COPD and lung cancer. Importantly for the clinician, it summarizes the indications, benefits, and complications of lung cancer screening in patients with COPD, and the assessment of risk factors for patients with COPD undergoing consideration of various treatment options for lung cancer.

Should psychological distress be listed as a surgical indication for indeterminate pulmonary nodules: protocol for a prospective cohort study in real-world settings

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary nodules (PNs) are documented in up to 30% of computed tomography (CT) reports. PNs of indeterminate nature (IPN) have been reported to be associated with increased psychological distress and deterioration of the quality of life. Despite lack of solid evidence, severe anxiety or depression has been proposed to be one of the surgical indications in expert consensus for IPN management. So far, there is no established criterion to guide the decision-making process, or to ensure evidence-based management. This study aims to evaluate whether psychological distress could be a surgical indication for IPN, and to establish an evidence-based distress threshold for necessary surgical intervention.

METHODS

This prospective observational study in real-world setting will involve an expected sample size of 1,253 IPN patients from the thoracic clinic of Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital. Web-based questionnaires powered by Wen Juan Xing (WJX) platform will be delivered to the patients for baseline data collection and psychological screening. Based on our pilot study, a total of 376 IPN patients with abnormal or borderline abnormal psychological states, as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), will be followed for 1 year before proceeding to the final analysis. The planned study period is from Jan 1, 2021, to Sept 30, 2022, and will entail two HADS assessments at baseline and follow-up. Sleep quality and indicators of healthcare-seeking behavior, such as the number of unplanned clinic visits or CT scans per year, will be used as anchors of psychological state. Patients who undergo surgical resection against the follow-up plan will be enrolled into a surgical group (expected n=94), while those who adhere to their plan will be automatically classified as a follow-up group after 1-year follow-up (expected n=282). Statistical measures such as independent-samples t-test and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis will be used to assess the difference in psychological changes between the groups, and to generate an optimal threshold alerting surgical need. A Chi-square test or nonparametric test will be used to compare the baseline characteristics. Contributors to psychological burden and their effect sizes will be evaluated using general linear regression.

DISCUSSION

To date, data on the psychological benefits of surgical resection of IPN remains scanty. Evidence-based procedure of patient selection using appropriate psychological screening tools is crucial in improving the quality of care and preventing overtreatment. This protocol describes the rationale and methodology to address this unmet clinical need using real-world data, aiming to bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and real-world practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04857333. Registered April 23, 2021.

Patient-reported outcomes associated with cancer screening: a systematic review

Background

Multi-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.

Results

In total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.

Conclusions

The psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09261-5.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT in Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lung cancer continues to be one of the main causes of cancer death in Europe. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has shown high potential for screening of lung cancer in smokers, most recently in two European trials. The aim of this review was to assess lung cancer screening of smokers by LDCT with respect to clinical effectiveness, radiological procedures, quality of life, and changes in smoking behavior. We searched electronic databases in April 2020 for publications of randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on lung cancer and overall mortality, lung cancer morbidity, and harms of LDCT screening. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate effects on mortality. Forty-three publications on 10 RCTs were included. The meta-analysis of eight studies showed a statistically significant relative reduction of lung cancer mortality of 12% in the screening group (risk ratio = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97). Between 4% and 24% of screening-LDCT scans were classified as positive, and 84-96% of them turned out to be false positive. The risk of overdiagnosis was estimated between 19% and 69% of diagnosed lung cancers. Lung cancer screening can reduce disease-specific mortality in (former) smokers when stringent requirements and quality standards for performance are met.

[Lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography : a systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

Bronchial cancer, often diagnosed at a late stage, is the leading cause of cancer death. As early detection could potentially lead to curative treatment, several studies have evaluated low-dose chest CT (LDCT) as a screening method. The main objective of this work is to determine the impact of LDCT screening on overall mortality of a smoking population.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomised controlled screening trials comparing LDCT with no screening or chest x-ray.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomised controlled trials were identified, seven of which reported mortality results. NSLT showed a significant reduction of 6.7% in overall mortality and 20% in lung cancer mortality after 6.5 years of follow-up. NELSON showed a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality of 24% at 10 years among men. LUSI and MILD showed a reduction in lung cancer mortality of 69% at 8 years among women and 39% at 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Screening for bronchial cancer is a complex issue. Clarification is needed regarding the selection of individuals, the definition of a positive result and the attitude towards a suspicious nodule.

Psychosocial consequences of a three-month follow-up after receiving an abnormal lung cancer CT-screening result: A longitudinal survey

BACKGROUND

Participation in lung cancer CT-screening can be associated with a need for follow-up procedures. The screening and waiting for test results introduce the risk of experiencing psychosocial consequences. Therefore, the aims of this study were: 1) To investigate if the psychosocial consequences changed from before an annual screening round to before a three-month follow-up CT-scan in participants with a positive screening result. 2) To investigate potential differences in psychosocial consequences between false positives (FP) and true positives (TP). FP were defined as those where cancer was not confirmed in the follow-up CT-scan and TP where it was.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This longitudinal study was based on data from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). The Consequences of Screening - Lung cancer (COS-LC) questionnaire was used to measure psychosocial consequences among 130 participants who all received an abnormal CT-screening result at their annual screening round. Eligible participants completed the COS-LC before their annual CT-screening and before the three-month follow-up.

RESULTS

We found a statistically significant increase in negative psychosocial consequences between the annual lung cancer CT-screening and the three-month follow-up CT-scan in four of nine psychosocial scales; Sense of dejection, Self-blame, Focus on airway symptoms and Harm of smoking. Furthermore, an increase, however not statistically significant, was identified in all remaining scales, except for the scale Stigmatisation which was slightly decreased. We found no evidence of an association between psychosocial consequences and diagnostic groups, FP and TP.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in negative psychosocial consequences was observed between the annual lung cancer CT-screening and the three-month follow-up CT-scan. Since we found no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic groups, the increase in negative psychosocial consequences is interpreted as a nocebo effect of living three months in uncertainty not knowing if one's positive CT-screening result was true or false.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms.

RESULTS

This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Psychological outcomes of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in a multisite demonstration screening pilot: the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT)

BACKGROUND

Previous 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.

METHODS

Current 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.

RESULTS

Compared 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.

CONCLUSION

Psychological 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 REGISTRATION

The 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.

Mapping the spectrum of psychological and behavioural responses to low-dose CT lung cancer screening offered within a Lung Health Check

BACKGROUND

Research on the psychological impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening has typically been narrow in scope and restricted to the trial setting.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the range of psychological and behavioural responses to LDCT screening offered as part of a Lung Heath Check (LHC), including lung cancer risk assessment, spirometry testing, a carbon monoxide reading and smoking cessation advice.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 28 current and former smokers (aged 60-75), who had undergone LDCT screening as part of a LHC appointment and mostly received an incidental or indeterminate result (n = 23). Framework analysis was used to map the spectrum of responses participants had across the LHC appointment and screening pathway, to their LDCT results and to surveillance.

RESULTS

Interviewees reported a diverse range of both positive and negative psychological responses, beginning at invitation and spanning the entire LHC appointment (including spirometry) and LDCT screening pathway. Similarly, positive behavioural responses extended beyond smoking cessation to include anticipated implications for other cancer prevention and early detection behaviours, such as symptom presentation. Individual differences in responses appeared to be influenced by smoking status and LDCT result, as well as modifiable factors including perceived risk and health status, social support, competing priorities, fatalism and perceived stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

The diverse ways in which participants responded to screening, both psychologically and behaviourally, should direct a broader research agenda to ensure all stages of screening delivery and communication are designed to promote well-being, motivate positive behaviour change and maximize patient benefit.

Did psychosocial status, sociodemographics and smoking status affect non-attendance in control participants in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial? A nested observational study

OBJECTIVES

We investigated if psychosocial status, sociodemographics and smoking status affected non-attendance in the control group in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

DESIGN AND SETTING

This study was an observational study nested in the DLCST. Due to large non-attendance in the control group in the second screening round we made an additional effort to collect questionnaire data from non-attenders in this group in the third screening round. We used a condition-specific questionnaire to assess psychosocial status. We analysed the differences in psychosocial status in the third and preceding rounds between non-attenders and attenders in the control group in multivariable linear regression models adjusted for sociodemographics and smoking status reported at baseline. Differences in sociodemographics and smoking status were analysed with χ² tests (categorical variables) and t-tests (continuous variables).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary outcome was psychosocial status.

PARTICIPANTS

All control persons participating in the third screening round in the DLCST were included.

RESULTS

Non-attenders in the third round had significantly worse psychosocial status than attenders in the scales: 'behaviour' 0.77 (99% CI 0.18 to 1.36), 'self-blame' 0.59 (99% CI 0.14 to 1.04), 'focus on airway symptoms' 0.22 (99% CI 0.08 to 0.36), 'stigmatisation' 0.51 (99% CI 0.16 to 0.86), 'introvert' 0.56 (99% CI 0.23 to 0.89) and 'harms of smoking' 0.35 (99% CI 0.11 to 0.59). Moreover, non-attenders had worse scores than attendees in the preceding screening rounds. Non-attenders also reported worse sociodemographics at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-attenders had a significantly worse psychosocial status and worse sociodemographics compared with attenders. The results of our study contribute with evidence of non-response and attrition driven by psychosocial status, which in turn may be influenced by the screening intervention itself. This can be used to adjust cancer screening trial results for bias due to differential non-attendance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov Protocol Registration System (NCT00496977).

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Direct and indirect healthcare costs of lung cancer CT screening in Denmark: a registry study

INTRODUCTION

A study based on the Danish Randomised Controlled Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) calculated the healthcare costs of lung cancer screening by comparing costs in an intervention group with a control group. Participants in both groups, however, experienced significantly increased negative psychosocial consequences after randomisation. Substantial participation bias has also been documented: The DLCST participants reported fewer negative psychosocial aspects and experienced better living conditions compared with the random sample.

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyse the costs of lung cancer CT screening and to determine whether invitations to mass screening alter the utilisation of the healthcare system resulting in indirect costs. Healthcare utilisation and costs are analysed in the primary care sector (general practitioner psychologists, physiotherapists, other specialists, drugs) and the secondary care sector (emergency room contacts, outpatient visits, hospitalisation days, surgical procedures and non-surgical procedures).

DESIGN

To account for bias in the original trial, the costs and utilisation of healthcare by participants in DLCST were compared with a new reference group, selected in the period from randomisation (2004-2006) until 2014.

SETTING

Four Danish national registers.

PARTICIPANTS

DLCST included 4104 current or former heavy smokers, randomly assigned to the CT group or the control group. The new reference group comprised a random sample of 535 current or former heavy smokers in the general Danish population who were never invited to participate in a cancer screening test.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total healthcare costs including costs and utilisation of healthcare in both the primary and the secondary care sector.

RESULTS

Compared with the reference group, the participants in both the CT group (offered annual CT screening, lung function test and smoking counselling) and the control group (offered annual lung function test and smoking counselling) had significantly increased total healthcare costs, calculated at 60% and 48% respectively. The increase in costs was caused by increased use of healthcare in both the primary and the secondary sectors.

CONCLUSION

CT screening leads to 60% increased total healthcare costs. Such increase would raise the expected annual healthcare cost per participant from EUR 2348 to EUR 3756. Cost analysis that only includes costs directly related to the CT scan and follow-up procedures most likely underestimates total costs. Our data show that the increased costs are not limited to the secondary sector.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00496977.

Common mental disorders in Taiwanese consumers of commercial low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: Comparison with a nationally representative sample

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

We examined the prevalence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs) in commercial low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening consumers relative to the general population and to determine the correlates of probable CMDs among screening participants.

METHODS

Commercial LDCT lung cancer screening consumers (N = 1323) were compared with a nationally representative sample from the Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS) (N = 2034). Respondents scoring ≥3 on the Chinese Health Questionnaire were classified as having a probable CMD. Logistic regression was used to investigate differences between the two groups and correlates of probable CMDs among LDCT lung cancer screening participants.

RESULTS

The prevalence of probable CMDs was higher among LDCT lung cancer screening participants (25.47%) than among TSCS adults (21.56%). Compared with the TSCS sample, the screening participants had a higher probability of CMDs (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.13-1.73), higher education levels (OR = 7.95, 95% CI = 6.00-10.53), and a history of drinking (OR = 11.85, 95% CI = 9.45-14.85) or betel-quid use (OR = 5.43, 95% CI = 3.98-7.42) but were less likely to smoke (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.40-0.68). Among the screening participants, being female (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.02-1.84) and a current smoker (OR = 1.74, 1.19-2.54) and living near ≥2 smoking family members (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.57-3.38) were associated with an increased likelihood of having CMDs.

CONCLUSION

Commercial LDCT lung cancer screening users may have a positive association with probable CMDs compared to the general population. Screening programs should consider including criteria and providing psychoeducation to improve the physical and mental outcomes of participants.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Purely observational studies (those in which the assignment of the medical intervention is not at the discretion of the investigator) do not require registration.

A prospective cohort study of shared decision making in lung cancer diagnostics: Impact of using a patient decision aid

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the impact on patient-reported outcomes of introducing Shared Decision Making (SDM) and a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study, where a control cohort was consulted according to usual clinical practice. After introducing SDM through a PtDA and training of the staff, the SDM cohort was enrolled in the study. All patients completed four questionnaires: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after the consultation, the CollaboRATE scale after the consultation, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS).

RESULTS

Patients exposed to SDM and a PtDA had significantly improved DCS scores after the consultation compared to the control group (a difference of 10.26, p = 0.0128) and significantly lower DRS scores (a difference of 8.98, p = 0.0197). Of the 82 control patients and 52 SDM patients 29% and 54%, respectively, gave the maximum score on the CollaboRATE scale (Pearson's chi² 8.0946, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The use of SDM and a PtDA had significant positive impact on patient-reported outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our results may encourage the increased uptake of SDM in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Health-related quality of life and anxiety in the PAN-CAN lung cancer screening cohort

OBJECTIVES

The impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose chest CT (LDCT) on participants' anxiety levels and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in the implementation of such programmes. We aimed to describe changes in anxiety and HRQoL in a high-risk Canadian cohort undergoing LDCT lung cancer screening.

METHODS

2537 subjects who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 6 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from eight centres across Canada in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (2008-2010). We compared HRQoL and anxiety levels before and after screening of 1237 participants with LDCT (excluding a subset of 1300 participants who also underwent autofluorescence bronchoscopy screening), as well as after investigations performed because of a positive screening examination. The 12-item short-form Physical and Mental Component Scales (SF-12), EQ-5D-3L scores and State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State anxiety were used at each assessment.

RESULTS

Overall, there were no clinically significant differences in HRQoL outcomes between baseline and each of the survey time points following initial screening. No mean change in anxiety in the overall cohort was noted following baseline LDCT, but more participants had clinically significant increase in anxiety versus decrease after baseline screening (increase >minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (n=180) vs decrease >MCID (n=50), p<0.001). This finding persisted but to a lesser degree at the 12 month time point (increase >MCID (n=146) vs decrease >MCID (n=87), p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CT screening for lung cancer has no major overall impact on HRQoL among participants, although a minority of participants (number-needed-to-harm=7 after baseline screening and 18 at 1 year) demonstrated clinically significant increased anxiety levels.

TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00751660; Results.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in a population sample

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Routine UK lung cancer screening is not yet available, thus understanding barriers to participation in lung screening could help maximize effectiveness if introduced.

Methods

Population‐based survey of 1007 adults aged 16 and over in Wales using random quota sampling. Computer‐assisted face‐to‐face interviews included demographic variables (age, gender, smoking, social group), four lung cancer belief statements and three lung screening attitudinal items. Determinants of lung screening attitudes were examined using multivariable regression adjusted for age, gender, social group and previous exposure to lung campaign messages.

Results

Avoidance of lung screening due to fear of what might be found was statistically significantly associated with negative lung cancer beliefs including fatalism (aOR = 8.8, 95% CI = 5.6‐13.9, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptomatic presentation (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5‐3.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.3, CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.01).

Low perceived effectiveness of lung screening was significantly associated with fatalism (aOR = 6.4, 95% CI = 3.5‐11.7, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptom presentation (aOR = 4.9, 95% CI = 2.7‐8.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.1‐0.3, P ≤ 0.001). In contrast, respondents who thought lung screening could reduce cancer deaths had positive beliefs about lung cancer (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.001) and its treatment (aOR = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.0‐12.6, P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion

People with negative beliefs about lung cancer may be more likely to avoid lung screening. Alongside the introduction of effective early detection strategies, interventions are needed to modify public perceptions of lung cancer, particularly for fatalism.

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 early stage lung cancer and its correlation with lung nodule detection

Currently, the most effective way of reducing lung cancer mortality is early diagnosis of lung cancer. The National Lung Screening Trial has proved the efficacy of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography to reduce lung cancer mortality. However, many questions remain surrounding lung cancer screening implementation, among which include how to select the optimal risk population, the personalized screening interval based different levels of risk, methods to improve diagnostic discrimination between malignant and benign disease in detected lung nodules, and the roles of biomolecular markers in stratifying risk and in guiding the management of indeterminate nodules. This review concentrates on the latest developments of lung cancer screening and provides an overview of the main unanswered questions on lung nodule detection.

Lung cancer screening: latest developments and unanswered questions

The US National Lung Screening Trial showed that individuals randomly assigned to screening with low-dose CT scans had 20% lower lung cancer mortality than did those screened with conventional chest radiography. On the basis of a review of the literature and a modelling study, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual screening for lung cancer for individuals aged 55-80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and either currently smoke or quit smoking within the past 15 years. However, the balance between benefits and harms of lung cancer screening is still greatly debated. The large number of false-positive results and the potential for overdiagnosis are causes for concern. Some investigators suggest the ratio between benefits and harms could be improved through various means. Nevertheless, many questions remain with regard to the implementation of lung cancer screening. This paper highlights the latest developments in CT lung cancer screening and provides an overview of the main unanswered questions.

Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation.

METHODS

We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care.

RESULTS

The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care.

Scan-associated distress in lung cancer: Quantifying the impact of "scanxiety"

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic imaging may be a major source of cancer-related distress, a condition known as "scanxiety". Scant scholarly work has been performed to evaluate scan-associated distress in cancer. We sought to characterize risk factors for scan-associated distress among patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), and to evaluate the impact of scan-associated distress on quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of patients with recurrent/metastatic NSCLC treated at an academic medical center. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained through chart abstraction and patient self-report. We used a modified version of the Impact of Event Scale 6 (IES-6) to specifically assess distress associated with scans, and quality of life was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L).

RESULTS

Among 103 participants (survey response rate 76.3%), median age was 67, 61.2% were women, and 82.5% were white. At the study visit, 72.8% of subjects discussed a recent scan, and 83% reported some scan-associated distress. Scan-associated distress was not associated with whether the patient had a recent scan, progressive disease or time from diagnosis. Scan-associated distress was associated with impaired quality of life (p=0.004); each unit increase in IES-6 corresponded to an approximately one-unit decrease in FACT-L score.

CONCLUSION

Scan-associated distress is a common problem among patients with NSCLC, and is associated with impaired quality of life. Scan-associated distress severity was not associated with time since diagnosis or whether a recent scan was discussed at the study visit, which implies scan-associated distress may be a persistent problem.

Long-term psychosocial outcomes of low-dose CT screening: results of the UK Lung Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial

Background

The UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial is a randomised pilot trial of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for individuals at high risk of lung cancer. We assessed the long-term psychosocial impact on individuals participating in the UKLS trial.

Methods

A random sample of individuals aged 50–75 years was contacted via primary care. High-risk individuals who completed T₀ questionnaires (baseline) were randomised to LDCT screening (intervention) or usual care (no screening control). T₁ questionnaires were sent 2 weeks after baseline scan results or control assignment. T₂ questionnaires were sent up to 2 years after recruitment. Measures included cancer distress, anxiety, depression and decision satisfaction.

Results

A total of 4037 high-risk individuals were randomised and they completed T₀ questionnaires (n=2018 intervention, n=2019 control). Cancer distress was higher at T₁ in intervention arm participants who received positive screening results (p≤0.001), but not at T₂ (p=0.04). T₂ anxiety (p≤0.001) and depression (p≤0.01) were higher in the control arm, but the absolute differences were small and not clinically relevant. At both time points, fewer control than screened participants were satisfied with their decision to participate in UKLS (p≤0.001). Regardless of trial allocation, cancer distress was higher in women (p≤0.01), participants aged ≤65 years (p≤0.001), current smokers (p≤0.001), those with lung cancer experience (p≤0.001) and those recruited from the Liverpool area (p≤0.001).

Conclusion

Lung cancer screening using LDCT appears to have no clinically significant long-term psychosocial impact on high-risk participants. Strategies for engaging and supporting underserved groups are the key to implement routine lung cancer screening in the UK.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN 78513845; results.

The UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of low-dose computed tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer kills more people than any other cancer in the UK (5-year survival < 13%). Early diagnosis can save lives. The USA-based National Lung Cancer Screening Trial reported a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% all-cause mortality in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-screened subjects.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) analyse LDCT lung cancer screening in a high-risk UK population, determine optimum recruitment, screening, reading and care pathway strategies; and (2) assess the psychological consequences and the health-economic implications of screening.

DESIGN

A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care. A population-based risk questionnaire identified individuals who were at high risk of developing lung cancer (≥ 5% over 5 years).

SETTING

Thoracic centres with expertise in lung cancer imaging, respiratory medicine, pathology and surgery: Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Merseyside, and Papworth Hospital, Cambridgeshire.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 50-75 years, at high risk of lung cancer, in the primary care trusts adjacent to the centres.

INTERVENTIONS

A thoracic LDCT scan. Follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans as per protocol. Referral to multidisciplinary team clinics was determined by nodule size criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Population-based recruitment based on risk stratification; management of the trial through web-based database; optimal characteristics of CT scan readers (radiologists vs. radiographers); characterisation of CT-detected nodules utilising volumetric analysis; prevalence of lung cancer at baseline; sociodemographic factors affecting participation; psychosocial measures (cancer distress, anxiety, depression, decision satisfaction); and cost-effectiveness modelling.

RESULTS

A total of 247,354 individuals were approached to take part in the trial; 30.7% responded positively to the screening invitation. Recruitment of participants resulted in 2028 in the CT arm and 2027 in the control arm. A total of 1994 participants underwent CT scanning: 42 participants (2.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer; 36 out of 42 (85.7%) of the screen-detected cancers were identified as stage 1 or 2, and 35 (83.3%) underwent surgical resection as their primary treatment. Lung cancer was more common in the lowest socioeconomic group. Short-term adverse psychosocial consequences were observed in participants who were randomised to the intervention arm and in those who had a major lung abnormality detected, but these differences were modest and temporary. Rollout of screening as a service or design of a full trial would need to address issues of outreach. The health-economic analysis suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective but this needs to be confirmed using data on actual lung cancer mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot was successfully undertaken with 4055 randomised individuals. The data from the UKLS provide evidence that adds to existing data to suggest that lung cancer screening in the UK could potentially be implemented in the 60-75 years age group, selected via the Liverpool Lung Project risk model version 2 and using CT volumetry-based management protocols.

FUTURE WORK

The UKLS data will be pooled with the NELSON (Nederlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek: Dutch-Belgian Randomised Lung Cancer Screening Trial) and other European Union trials in 2017 which will provide European mortality and cost-effectiveness data. For now, there is a clear need for mortality results from other trials and further research to identify optimal methods of implementation and delivery. Strategies for increasing uptake and providing support for underserved groups will be key to implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78513845.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Patient-centered outcomes among lung cancer screening recipients with computed tomography: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now widely recommended for adults who are current or former heavy smokers. It is important to evaluate the impact of screening on patient-centered outcomes. Among current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, we sought to determine the consequences of screening with LDCT, and subsequent results, on patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life, distress, and anxiety.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth Quarter 2012), MEDLINE (2000 to May 31, 2013), reference lists of articles, and Scopus for relevant English-language studies and systematic reviews. To evaluate the effect of LDCT screening on patient-centered outcomes, we included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving asymptomatic adults. To evaluate the association of particular results and/or recommendations from a screening LDCT with patient-centered outcomes, we included results from RCTs as well as from cohort studies.

RESULTS

A total of 8215 abstracts were reviewed. Five publications from two European RCTs and one publication from a cohort study conducted in the United States met inclusion criteria. The process of LDCT lung cancer screening was associated with short-term psychologic discomfort in many people but did not affect distress, worry, or health-related quality of life. False-positive results were associated with short-term increases in distress that returned to levels that were similar to those among people with negative results. Negative results were associated with short-term decreases in distress.

CONCLUSIONS

As lung cancer screening is implemented in the general population, it will be important to evaluate its association with patient-centered outcomes. People considering lung cancer screening should be aware of the possibility of distress caused by false-positive results. Clinicians may want to consider tailoring communication strategies that can decrease the distress associated with these results.

Large variations in risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in treatment naïve hepatitis B patients: systematic review with meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The complications to chronic hepatitis B (HBV) include incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and mortality. The risk of these complications may vary in different patient groups.

AIM

To estimate the incidence and predictors of HCC and in untreated HBV patients.

METHODS

Systematic review with random effects meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Results are expressed as annual incidence (events per 100 person-years) with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses of patient and study characteristics were performed to identify common risk factors.

RESULTS

We included 68 trials and studies with a total of 27,584 patients (264,919 person-years). In total, 1,285 of 26,687 (5%) patients developed HCC and 730 of 12,511 (6%) patients died. The annual incidence was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-0.99) for HCC and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.01-1.51) for mortality. Patients with cirrhosis had a higher risk of HCC (incidence 3.16; 95% CI, 2.58-3.74) than patients without cirrhosis (0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.18). The risk of dying was also higher for patients with than patients without cirrhosis (4.89; 95% CI, 3.16-6.63; and 0.11; 95% CI, 0.09-0.14). The risk of developing HCC increased with HCV coinfection, older age and inflammatory activity. The country of origin did not clearly predict HCC or mortality estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Cirrhosis was the strongest predictor of HCC incidence and mortality. Patients with HBV cirrhosis have a 31-fold increased risk of HCC and a 44-fold increased mortality compared to non-cirrhotic patients. The low incidence rates should be taken into account when considering HCC screening in non-cirrhotic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42013004764.

The eye response test alone is sufficient to predict stroke outcome--reintroduction of Japan Coma Scale: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Prompt assessment of consciousness levels is vitally important during the emergency care of stroke patients. The Japan Coma Scale (JCS) is a one-axis coma scale published in 1974 with outstanding simplicity. The hypothesis is that JCS is sufficient to predict stroke outcome. The aim of the study was to verify the predictability of JCS, which should help JCS attain international recognition.

DESIGN

A cohort study.

SETTING

A prefectural stroke registry.

PARTICIPANTS

We analysed 13 788 stroke patients identified from January 1999 to December 2009 inclusive in the entire Kyoto prefecture and registered in the Kyoto Stroke Registry (KSR).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We investigated the relationship between consciousness levels, based on JCS at stroke onset and activities of daily living (ADL) at 30 days or deaths within 30 days in a large population-based stroke registry. We calculated Spearman's coefficient for the correlation between JCS and the ADL scale, generated estimated survival curves by the Kaplan-Meier method and finally compared HRs for death within 30 days after onset, comparing patients with different conscious levels based on JCS.

RESULTS

A total of 13 406 (97.2%) patients were graded based on JCS. JCS correlated to the ADL scale with Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.61. HRs for death within 30 days were 1 (reference) (95% CIs), 5.55 (4.19 to 7.37), 9.54 (7.16 to 12.71) and 35.21 (26.10 to 44.83) in those scored as JCS0, JCS1, JCS2 and JCS3, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a single test of eye response, JCS has outstanding merits as a coma scale, that is, simplicity and applicability. The present study adds predictability for early outcome in stroke patients. JCS is valuable, especially in an emergency setting, when a prompt assessment of consciousness levels is needed.