Article

American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines

Chair and Alumni Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Medical College, Philadelphia, PA.
CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (Impact Factor: 162.5). 01/2013; 63(2). DOI: 10.3322/caac.21172
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Findings from the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial established that lung cancer mortality in specific high-risk groups can be reduced by annual screening with low-dose computed tomography. These findings indicate that the adoption of lung cancer screening could save many lives. Based on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the American Cancer Society is issuing an initial guideline for lung cancer screening. This guideline recommends that clinicians with access to high-volume, high-quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should initiate a discussion about screening with apparently healthy patients aged 55 years to 74 years who have at least a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. A process of informed and shared decision-making with a clinician related to the potential benefits, limitations, and harms associated with screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography should occur before any decision is made to initiate lung cancer screening. Smoking cessation counseling remains a high priority for clinical attention in discussions with current smokers, who should be informed of their continuing risk of lung cancer. Screening should not be viewed as an alternative to smoking cessation. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Robert A Smith, Jun 19, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
164 Views
  • Source
    Revue des Maladies Respiratoires 01/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.rmr.2013.10.641 · 0.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Much of the suffering and death from cancer could be prevented by more systematic efforts to reduce tobacco use, improve diet, increase physical activity, reduce obesity, and expand the use of established screening tests. Monitoring the prevalence of cancer risk factors and screening is important to measure progress and strengthen cancer prevention and early detection efforts. In this review article, we provide recent prevalence estimates for several cancer risk factors, including tobacco, obesity, physical activity, nutrition, ultraviolet radiation exposure as well as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B vaccination coverage and cancer screening prevalence in the United States. In 2013, cigarette smoking prevalence was 17.8% among adults nationally, but ranged from 10.3% in Utah to 27.3% in West Virginia. In addition, 15.7% of U.S. high school students were current smokers. In 2011-2012, obesity prevalence was high among both adults (34.9%) and adolescents (20.5%), but has leveled off since 2002. About 20.2% of high school girls were users of indoor tanning devices, compared with 5.3% of boys. In 2013, cancer screening prevalence ranged from 58.6% for colorectal cancer to 80.8% for cervical cancer and remains low among the uninsured, particularly for colorectal cancer screening where only 21.9% of eligible adults received recommended colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(4); 637-52. ©2015 AACR. ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 04/2015; 24(4):637-652. DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0134 · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality. We sought to assess lung cancer screening practices and attitudes among primary care providers (PCPs) in the era of new LDCT screening guidelines. Methods: In 2013, we surveyed PCPs at an academic medical center (60% response) and assessed: lung cancer screening use, perceived screening effectiveness, knowledge of screening guidelines, perceived barriers to LDCT use, and interest in LDCT screening education. Results: Few PCPs (n=212) reported ordering lung cancer screening: chest x-ray (21%), LDCT (12%), and sputum cytology (3%). Only 47% of providers knew three or more of six guideline components for LDCT screening; 24% did not know any guideline components. In multiple logistic regression analysis, providers who knew three or more guideline components were more likely to order LDCT (OR 7.1, 95% CI 2.0-25.6). Many providers (30%) were unsure of the effectiveness of LDCT. Mammography, colonoscopy, and Pap smear were rated more frequently as effective in reducing cancer mortality compared to LDCT (all p-values < 0.0001). Common perceived barriers included patient cost (86.9% major or minor barrier), harm from false positives (82.7%), patients' lack of awareness (81.3%), risk of incidental findings (81.3%), and insurance coverage (80.1%). Conclusions: LDCT lung cancer screening is currently an uncommon practice at an academic medical center. PCPs report ordering chest x-ray, a non-recommended screening test, more often than LDCT. PCPs had a limited understanding of lung cancer screening guidelines and LDCT effectiveness. Provider educational interventionsare needed to facilitate shared-decision making with patients. Copyright © 2015, American Association for Cancer Research.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 11/2014; 90(5). DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.08.034 · 4.18 Impact Factor