nach oben

Erschienen in:

23.01.2020 | Original Research

Real-world Clinical Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening—Evaluating Processes to Improve Screening Guidelines-Concordance

verfasst von: Nikki M. Carroll, MS, Andrea N. Burnett-Hartman, PhD, Caroline A. Joyce, MSc, William Kinnard, MD, Eric J. Harker, MD, Virginia Hall, BS, Julie S. Steiner, MA, Erica Blum-Barnett, MSPH, Debra P. Ritzwoller, PhD

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Lung cancer screening (LCS) requires complex processes to identify eligible patients, provide appropriate follow-up, and manage findings. It is unclear whether LCS in real-world clinical settings will realize the same benefits as the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

Objective

To evaluate the impact of process modifications on compliance with LCS guidelines during LCS program implementation, and to compare patient characteristics and outcomes with those in NLST.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO), a non-profit integrated healthcare system.

Patients

A total of 3375 patients who underwent a baseline lung cancer screening low-dose computed tomography (S-LDCT) scan between May 2014 and June 2017.

Measurements

Among those receiving an S-LDCT, proportion who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria before and after LCS process modifications, differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between KPCO LCS patients and the NLST cohort, and factors associated with a positive screen.

Results

After modifying LCS eligibility confirmation processes, patients receiving S-LDCT who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria increased from 45.6 to 92.7% (P < 0.001). Prior to changes, patients were older (68 vs. 67 years; P = 0.001), less likely to be current smokers (51.3% vs. 52.5%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have a ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history (50.0% vs. 95.3%; P < 0.001). Compared with NLST participants, KPCO LCS patients were older (67 vs. 60 years; P < 0.001), more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 48.1%; P < 0.001), and more likely to have pulmonary disease. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, the lung cancer detection rate was higher at KPCO (9.4% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.001) and was positively associated with prior pulmonary disease.

Conclusion

Adherence to LCS guidelines requires eligibility confirmation procedures. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, comorbidity burden and lung cancer detection rates were notably higher than in NLST, suggesting that the study of long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LCS in real-world clinical settings is warranted.

National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 CrossRef

Moyer VA, Force USPST. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014;160(5):330–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2771.CrossRefPubMed

Kinsinger LS, Anderson C, Kim J, Larson M, Chan SH, King HA, et al. Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177(3):399–406. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9022.CrossRefPubMed

Caverly TJ, Fagerlin A, Wiener RS, Slatore CG, Tanner NT, Yun S, et al. Comparison of Observed Harms and Expected Mortality Benefit for Persons in the Veterans Health Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(3):426–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Begnaud A, Hall T, Allen T. Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose CT: Implementation Amid Changing Public Policy at One Health Care System. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:e468–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.14694/edbk_159195.

Gesthalter YB, Koppelman E, Bolton R, Slatore CG, Yoon SH, Cain HC, et al. Evaluations of Implementation at Early-Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: Lessons Learned. Chest. 2017;152(1):70–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.02.012.CrossRefPubMed

Pasquinelli MM, Kovitz KL, Koshy M, Menchaca MG, Liu L, Winn R, et al. Outcomes From a Minority-Based Lung Cancer Screening Program vs the National Lung Screening Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2823.

Gould MK, Sakoda LC, Ritzwoller DP, Simoff MJ, Neslund-Dudas CM, Kushi LH, et al. Monitoring Lung Cancer Screening Use and Outcomes at Four Cancer Research Network Sites. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(12):1827–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201703-237OC.

McKee BJ, McKee AB, Flacke S, Lamb CR, Hesketh PJ, Wald C. Initial experience with a free, high-volume, low-dose CT lung cancer screening program. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(8):586–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.015.

10.

Goulart BH, Ramsey SD. Moving beyond the national lung screening trial: discussing strategies for implementation of lung cancer screening programs. Oncologist. 2013;18(8):941–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Lanni TB, Jr., Stevens C, Farah M, Boyer A, Davis J, Welsh R, et al. Early Results From the Implementation of a Lung Cancer Screening Program: The Beaumont Health System Experience. Am J Clin Oncol 2018;41(3):218–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/coc.0000000000000254.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Milch H, Kaminetzky M, Pak P, Godelman A, Shmukler A, Koenigsberg TC, et al. Computed tomography screening for lung cancer: preliminary results in a diverse urban population. J Thorac Imaging 2015;30(2):157–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/rti.0000000000000123.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Medicare Coverage of Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT): Department of Health and Human Services - Ceters for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2015.

14.

Brenner AT, Malo TL, Margolis M, Elston Lafata J, James S, Vu MB, et al. Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1311–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Copeland A, Criswell A, Ciupek A, King JC. Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in the Community Setting in the United States. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul; 15(7):e607-e615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.18.00788.

16.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N) Washington, DC2015. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=274 Accessed October 14, 2019..

17.

Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Clapp JD, Clingan KL, Gareen IF, et al. Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(23):1771–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq434.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Church TR, Black WC, Aberle DR, Berg CD, Clingan KL, Duan F, et al. Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(21):1980–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209120.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN). VDW Data Model 2017. Available from: http://www.hcsrn.org. Accessed 14 Oct 2019.

20.

National Cancer Institute Cancer Research Network. Welcome to the Cancer Research Network 2018. Available from: https://www.crn.cancer.gov/. Accessed 14 Oct 2019

21.

Ritzwoller DP, Carroll N, Delate T, O'Keeffe-Rossetti M, Fishman PA, Loggers ET, et al. Validation of electronic data on chemotherapy and hormone therapy use in HMOs. Med Care 2013;51(10):e67–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824def85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Wagner EH, Greene SM, Hart G, Field TS, Fletcher S, Geiger AM, et al. Building a research consortium of large health systems: the Cancer Research Network. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005(35):3–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi032.CrossRef

23.

Hornbrook MC, Hart G, Ellis JL, Bachman DJ, Ansell G, Greene SM, et al. Building a virtual cancer research organization. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005(35):12–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi033.

24.

Ross TR, Ng D, Brown JS, Pardee R, Hornbrook MC, Hart G, et al. The HMO Research Network Virtual Data Warehouse: A Public Data Model to Support Collaboration. EGEMS (Washington, DC). 2014;2(1):1049. doi: https://doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1049.CrossRef

25.

National Cancer Institute. The HMO Cancer Research Network: Capacity, collaboration, and investigation,. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; 2010.

26.

American College of Radiology. Lung-RADS Version 1.0 Assessment Categories 2014. Available from: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Lung-RADS/LungRADS_AssessmentCategories.pdf?la=en. Accessed 14 Oct 2019.

27.

Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi J-C, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005:1130–9.

28.

Allison PD, Chatterjee S, Hadi AS. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application + Regressi: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.

29.

Richards TB, Doria-Rose VP, Soman A, Klabunde CN, Caraballo RS, Gray SC, et al. Lung Cancer Screening Inconsistent With U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(1):66–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.07.030.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Huo J, Shen C, Volk RJ, Shih YT. Use of CT and Chest Radiography for Lung Cancer Screening Before and After Publication of Screening Guidelines: Intended and Unintended Uptake. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):439–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Iaccarino JM, Steiling KA, Wiener RS. Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Hospital: Implications of Screening a Real-World Population versus the National Lung Screening Trial. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018;15(12):1493–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201806-389RL.

32.

Li J, Chung S, Wei EK, Luft HS. New recommendation and coverage of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: uptake has increased but is still low. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):525. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3338-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Wilson DO, Weissfeld JL, Fuhrman CR, Fisher SN, Balogh P, Landreneau RJ, et al. The Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS): outcomes within 3 years of a first computed tomography scan. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(9):956–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200802-336OC.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Wagnetz U, Menezes RJ, Boerner S, Paul NS, Wagnetz D, Keshavjee S, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: implication of lung biopsy recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198(2):351–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.11.6726.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Triplette M, Kross EK, Mann BA, Elmore JG, Slatore CG, Shahrir S, et al. An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018;15(1):69–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201705-392OC.

36.

Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, Sicks JD, Keeler EB, Aberle DR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1793–802. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1312547.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Tanner NT, Dai L, Bade BC, Gebregziabher M, Silvestri GA. Assessing the Generalizability of the National Lung Screening Trial: Comparison of Patients with Stage 1 Disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(5):602–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201705-0914OC.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Howard DH, Richards TB, Bach PB, Kegler MC, Berg CJ. Comorbidities, smoking status, and life expectancy among individuals eligible for lung cancer screening. Cancer. 2015;121(24):4341–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29677.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

American College of Radiology (ACR). Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS^TM) 2014. Available from: https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS. Accessed 14 Oct 2019.

40.

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. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2086.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Real-world Clinical Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening—Evaluating Processes to Improve Screening Guidelines-Concordance
verfasst von: Nikki M. Carroll, MS
Andrea N. Burnett-Hartman, PhD
Caroline A. Joyce, MSc
William Kinnard, MD
Eric J. Harker, MD
Virginia Hall, BS
Julie S. Steiner, MA
Erica Blum-Barnett, MSPH
Debra P. Ritzwoller, PhD
Publikationsdatum: 23.01.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05539-w

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Battle of Experts: Sport vs. Spritze bei Adipositas und Typ-2-Diabetes

11.05.2024 DDG-Jahrestagung 2024 Kongressbericht

Im Battle of Experts traten zwei Experten auf dem Diabeteskongress gegeneinander an: Die eine vertrat die Auffassung „Sport statt Spritze“ bei Adipositas und Typ-2-Diabetes, der andere forderte „Spritze statt Sport!“ Am Ende waren sie sich aber einig: Die Kombination aus beidem erzielt die besten Ergebnisse.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Real-world Clinical Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening—Evaluating Processes to Improve Screening Guidelines-Concordance