Advertisement

Lung Cancer Screening: Insights from a Thriving Clinical Practice

  • Michael BurchEmail author
  • Sangita Kapur
  • Sandra Starnes
Pulmonary Radiology (M Stephens and S Kapur, Section Editors)
  • 8 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Pulmonary Radiology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the USA. Computed tomography (CT) offers the potential for early detection by screening asymptomatic high-risk patients. We aimed to review the benefits and potential harms of lung cancer screening, discuss the logistics of a screening program, and provide insight from our own experience.

Recent Findings

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large population-based study, has demonstrated mortality benefit from screening, but relatively few eligible patients currently participate. An effective screening program requires input and cooperation from multiple stakeholders. Effort should be made to actively engage patients in the process including a thorough discussion of benefits and possible harms. At our institution, this approach has resulted in a rapidly growing and sustainable program.

Summary

Lung cancer screening has proven mortality benefit in high-risk patients but is underutilized. Developing and growing a screening program is a complex process requiring coordination among multiple specialties with a focus on patient autonomy.

Keywords

Lung cancer screening Low-dose chest CT Lung-RADS 

Notes

Special Acknowledgment

The authors thank Mona Hemingway, BSN, RN.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Michael Burch, Sangita Kapur, and Sandra Starnes declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Pham D, Bhandari S, Oechsli M, Pinkston C, Kloecker G. Lung cancer screening rates: data from the lung cancer screening registry. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(suppl abstract 6504):6504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, Fedewa SA. Lung Cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in the United States-2010 to 2015. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(9):1278–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thun MJ, Carter BD, Feskanich D, Freedman ND, Prentice R, Lopez AD, et al. 50-year trends in smoking-related mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(4):351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Fagerstrom RM, Williams DE, Fontana R, Taylor WF, et al. Lung cancer mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: impact of extended follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(16):1308–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409. This study reports the results of the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrating reduced mortality with screening low-dose CT. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Koning H, Van Der Aalst C, Ten Haaf K, Oudkerk M. Effects of volume CT lung cancer screening: mortality results of the NELSON randomised-controlled population based trial. 2018 World Conference on Lung Cancer. Abstract PL02.05. Presented September 25, 2018.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goulart BH, Bensink ME, Mummy DG, Ramsey SD. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: costs, national expenditures, and cost-effectiveness. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2012;10(2):267–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kazerooni EA, Austin JH, Black WC, Dyer DS, Hazelton TR, Leung AN, McNitt-Gray MF, Munden RF, Pipavath S; American College of Radiology; Society of Thoracic Radiology. ACR-STR practice parameter for the performance and reporting of lung cancer screening thoracic computed tomography (CT): 2014 (Resolution 4). J Thorac Imaging 2014;29(5):310–316.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiener RS, Gould MK, Arenberg DA, Au DH, Fennig K, Lamb CR, Mazzone PJ, Midthun DE, Napoli M, Ost DE, Powell CA, Rivera MP, Slatore CG, Tanner NT, Vachani A, Wisnivesky JP, Yoon SH; ATS/ACCP Committee on Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;192(7):881–891.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kanodra NM, Pope C, Halbert CH, Silvestri GA, Rice LJ, Tanner NT. Primary care provider and patient perspectives on lung cancer screening. A qualitative atudy. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13(11):1977–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Godoy MCB, Odisio EGLC, Erasmus JJ, Chate RC, Dos Santos RS, Truong MT. Understanding lung-RADS 1.0: a case-based review. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2018;39(3):260–72. Review of Lung-RADS categories and recommendations with case examples. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Ravenel JG, Nance JW. Coronary artery calcification in lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7(3):361–7. Discusses the usefulness of coronary artery calcification scoring in the lung cancer screening population. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, Doherty TM, Detrano RC. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA. 2004;291(2):210–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Budoff MJ, Hokanson JE, Nasir K, Shaw LJ, Kinney GL, Chow D, et al. Progression of coronary artery calcium predicts all-cause mortality. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(12):1229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiles C, Duan F, Gladish GW, Ravenel JG, Baginski SG, Snyder BS, DeMello S, Desjardins SS, Munden RF1; NLST Study Team. Association of Coronary Artery Calcification and Mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial: a comparison of three scoring methods. Radiology. 2015;276(1):82–90.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson EB. Methods for text mining in radiology. 2016 May. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=case1459514073
  17. 17.
    Munden RF, Carter BW, Chiles C, MacMahon H, Black WC, Ko JP, et al. Managing incidental findings on thoracic CT: mediastinal and cardiovascular findings. A white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(8):1087–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Litmanovich D, Bankier AA, Cantin L, Raptopoulos V, Boiselle PM. CT and MRI in diseases of the aorta. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):928–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Godoy MCB, White CS, Erasmus JJ, Wu CC, Truong MT, Munden RF, et al. Extrapulmonary neoplasms in lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7(3):368–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 2nd ed; 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu CC, Maher MM, Shepard JA. Complications of CT-guided percutaneous needle biopsy of the chest: prevention and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):W678–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    •• Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Black W, Munden R, Nath H, Aberle D, et al. Performance of lung-RADS in the National Lung Screening Trial: a retrospective assessment. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(7):485–91. Demonstrates significant reduction in false-positive screens with Lung-RADS retrospectively applied to the NLST. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brain K, Lifford KJ, Carter B, Burke O, McRonald F, Devaraj A, et al. Long-term psychosocial outcomes of low-dose CT screening: results of the UK Lung Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2016;71(11):996–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slatore CG, Sullivan DR, Pappas M, Humphrey LL. Patient-centered outcomes among lung cancer screening recipients with computed tomography: a systematic review. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(7):927–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UC HealthUniversity of Cincinnati Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations