The person behind the nodule: a narrative review of the psychological impact of lung cancer screening

Participant factors associated with psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual-level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for full-text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre-registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre-post (n = 13), cross-sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed-methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio-economic group, not being married or co-habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non-significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation.

CONCLUSION(S)

Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed.

Validation of the psychosocial consequences of screening in lung cancer questionnaire in the international lung screen trial Australian cohort

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST).

METHODS

The Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results.

RESULTS

Minor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results.

CONCLUSION

COS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02871856.

Emotional Distress, Anxiety, and General Health Status in Patients With Newly Identified Small Pulmonary Nodules: Results From the Watch the Spot Trial

BACKGROUND

Anxiety and emotional distress have not been studied in large, diverse samples of patients with pulmonary nodules.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How common are anxiety and distress in patients with newly identified pulmonary nodules, and what factors are associated with these outcomes?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study surveyed participants in the Watch the Spot Trial, a large, pragmatic clinical trial of more vs less intensive strategies for radiographic surveillance of patients with small pulmonary nodules. The survey included validated instruments to measure patient-centered outcomes such as nodule-related emotional distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and anxiety (Six-Item State Anxiety Inventory) 6 to 8 weeks following nodule identification. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study arms following adjustment for potential confounders and clustering within enrollment site, while also examining a limited number of prespecified explanatory factors, including nodule size, mode of detection, type of ordering clinician, and lack of timely notification prior to contact by the study team.

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 34,699 patients; 2,049 individuals completed the baseline survey (5.9%). Respondents and nonrespondents had similar demographic and nodule characteristics, although more respondents were non-Hispanic and White. Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated mild, moderate, or severe distress in 32.2%, 9.4%, and 7.2% of respondents, respectively, with no difference in scores between study arms. Following adjustment, greater emotional distress was associated with larger nodule size and lack of timely notification by a clinician; distress was also associated with younger age, female sex, ever smoking, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Anxiety was associated with lack of timely notification, ever smoking, and female sex.

INTERPRETATION

Almost one-half of respondents experienced emotional distress 6 to 8 weeks following pulmonary nodule identification. Strategies are needed to mitigate the burden of distress, especially in younger, female, ever smoking, and minoritized patients, and those with larger nodules.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02623712; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Clinical Scores, Biomarkers and IT Tools in Lung Cancer Screening-Can an Integrated Approach Overcome Current Challenges?

As most lung cancer (LC) cases are still detected at advanced and incurable stages, there are increasing efforts to foster detection at earlier stages by low dose computed tomography (LDCT) based LC screening. In this scoping review, we describe current advances in candidate selection for screening (selection phase), technical aspects (screening), and probability evaluation of malignancy of CT-detected pulmonary nodules (PN management). Literature was non-systematically assessed and reviewed for suitability by the authors. For the selection phase, we describe current eligibility criteria for screening, along with their limitations and potential refinements through advanced clinical scores and biomarker assessments. For LC screening, we discuss how the accuracy of computerized tomography (CT) scan reading might be augmented by IT tools, helping radiologists to cope with increasing workloads. For PN management, we evaluate the precision of follow-up scans by semi-automatic volume measurements of CT-detected PN. Moreover, we present an integrative approach to evaluate the probability of PN malignancy to enable safe decisions on further management. As a clear limitation, additional validation studies are required for most innovative diagnostic approaches presented in this article, but the integration of clinical risk models, current imaging techniques, and advancing biomarker research has the potential to improve the LC screening performance generally.

Clinical Impact and Generalizability of a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Tool to Risk-Stratify Lung Nodules With CT

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether an imaging classifier for radiology practice can improve lung nodule classification and follow-up.

METHODS

A machine learning classifier was developed and trained using imaging data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NSLT) to produce a malignancy risk score (malignancy Similarity Index [mSI]) for individual lung nodules. In addition to NLST cohorts, external cohorts were developed from a tertiary referral lung cancer screening program data set and an external nonscreening data set of all nodules detected on CT. Performance of the mSI combined with Lung-RADS was compared with Lung-RADS alone and the Mayo and Brock risk calculators.

RESULTS

We analyzed 963 subjects and 1,331 nodules across these cohorts. The mSI was comparable in accuracy (area under the curve = 0.89) to existing clinical risk models (area under the curve = 0.86-0.88) and independently predictive in the NLST cohort of 704 nodules. When compared with Lung-RADS, the mSI significantly increased sensitivity across all cohorts (25%-117%), with significant increases in specificity in the screening cohorts (17%-33%). When used in conjunction with Lung-RADS, use of mSI would result in earlier diagnoses and reduced follow-up across cohorts, including the potential for early diagnosis in 42% of malignant NLST nodules from prior-year CT scans.

CONCLUSION

A computer-assisted diagnosis software improved risk classification from chest CTs of screening and incidentally detected lung nodules compared with Lung-RADS. mSI added predictive value independent of existing radiological and clinical variables. These results suggest the generalizability and potential clinical impact of a tool that is straightforward to implement in practice.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

The reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a lung cancer screening setting

OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary nodules are commonly found in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS), with results typically communicated by face-to-face or telephone consultation. Providing LCS on a population basis requires resource efficient and scalabe communication methods. Written communication provides one such method. Here, we assess participant satisfaction with this approach in a LCS setting and investigate characteristics associated with dissatisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SUMMIT Study is a prospective observational cohort study which aims to assess the implementation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) scanning for LCS in a high-risk population and validate a multi-cancer early detection blood test (NCT03934866). Participants with indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring a three-month interval LDCT were informed of their result by postal letter and given a face-to-face appointment with a study practitioner at their interval LDCT appointment. At this appointment, having previously received their results letter, participants were verbally asked questions to assess their satisfaction with, and preferences for, methods of results communication.

RESULTS

1,900 participants were included in the analysis. 82.8% (n = 1573) were satisfied with receiving their results by letter, with 2.9% (n = 55) reporting dissatisfaction. 86.3% (n = 1640) stated it was their preferred communication method and 77.3% (n = 1469) reported that their letter contained the right amount of information. Participants from less deprived socioeconomic quintiles were more likely to report that the letter contained insufficient information and individuals aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to do so. Although 13.7% (n = 261) participants had discussed their results with their General Practitioner (GP) prior to the study visit, 83.9% (n = 219) of these participants were satisfied with receiving results by letter, with the same proportion preferring this communication method.

CONCLUSION

We report high participant satisfaction with the reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a LCS setting. We believe this provides a feasible route forward for large-scale screening programmes.

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.

The Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Research Priorities

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, primarily because most people present when the stage is too advanced to offer any reasonable chance of cure. Over the last two decades, evidence has accumulated to show that early detection of lung cancer, using low-radiation dose computed tomography, in people at higher risk of the condition reduces their mortality. Many countries are now making progress with implementing programmes, although some have concerns about cost-effectiveness. Lung cancer screening is complex, and many factors influence clinical and cost-effectiveness. It is important to develop strategies to optimise each element of the intervention from selection and participation through optimal scanning, management of findings and treatment. The overall aim is to maximise benefits and minimise harms. Additional integrated interventions must include at least smoking cessation. In this review, we summarize the evidence that has accumulated to guide optimisation of lung cancer screening, discuss the remaining open questions about the best approach and identify potential barriers to successful implementation.

The psychological impact of esophageal cancer screening on anxiety and depression in China

OBJECTIVE

The psychological impact of screening is unclear and has been ignored. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological impact of esophageal cancer (EC) screening on anxiety and depression in China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter, population-based study in five high-risk regions of EC was conducted from 2019 to 2020. Residents were recruited and underwent endoscopic screening and then were diagnosed with normal, esophagitis, low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) and EC. Subjects who did not participate in the screening were referred to as the control group. We surveyed their anxiety and depression levels at baseline and after endoscopy and informed them of different pathological results to evaluate the psychological impact of the screening process.

RESULTS

A total of 2,337 subjects completed all surveys in the screening process (normal: 355, esophagitis: 1,713, LGIN: 213, HGIN: 43 and EC: 13), with 63 controls. The levels of anxiety and depression of screeners were significantly higher than those of controls (P < 0.001). The fluctuation of anxiety and depression showed a "V" pattern in the screening process. The prevalence of anxiety symptoms at baseline, after endoscopy and after knowing the pathological results was 5.6, 0.3, and 3.2%, respectively (P < 0.001), and the corresponding prevalence of depression was 3.6, 0.2, and 2.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). With the aggravation of pathological results, the levels of anxiety and depression increased significantly (P < 0.001), especially in patients informed of HGIN (16.3 and 9.3%) and EC (23.1 and 30.8%).

CONCLUSION

Participation in endoscopic screening may bring short-term adverse psychological effects, especially at baseline and knowing the pathological results. More attention should be given to participants waiting for endoscopic screening. The method of informing the screening results of HGIN and EC should be improved. Further precise screening is needed to concentrate on high-risk groups to reduce the psychological impact of screening.