Long-term effects of lung cancer computed tomography screening on health-related quality of life: The NELSON trial

Dept of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
European Respiratory Journal (Impact Factor: 7.64). 12/2010; 38(1):154-61. DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00123410
Source: PubMed


The long-term effects of lung cancer computed tomography (CT) screening on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) have not yet been investigated. In the Dutch-Belgian Randomised Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON trial), 1,466 participants received questionnaires before randomisation (T0), 2 months after baseline screening (screen group only; T1) and at 2-yr follow-up (T2). HRQoL was measured as generic HRQoL (12-item short-form questionnaire and EuroQoL questionnaire), anxiety (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and lung cancer-specific distress (impact of event scale (IES)). Repeated measures of ANOVA were used to analyse differences between the screen and control groups, and between indeterminate (requiring a follow-up CT) and negative screening result groups. At T0 and T2 there were no significant differences in HRQoL scores over time between the screen and control groups, or between the indeterminate or negative second-round screening result group. There was a temporary increase in IES scores after an indeterminate baseline result (T0: mean 4.0 (95% CI 2.8-5.3); T1: mean 7.8 (95% CI 6.5-9.0); T2: mean 4.5 (95% CI 3.3-5.8)). At 2-yr follow-up, the HRQoL of screened subjects was similar to that of control subjects, the unfavourable short-term effects of an indeterminate baseline screening result had resolved and an indeterminate result at the second screening round had no impact on HRQoL.

6 Reads
  • Source
    • "In a systematic review addressing screening for lung cancer using thoracic CT scans, most of the detected lung nodules (> 90%) were benign, and invasive nonsurgical procedures in patients with benign lesions were common [20]. Forty-six percent of patients reported psychological distress while awaiting the confirmation of a potential cancer diagnosis [21]. Thus, the potential harms of a preventive program must be carefully weighed against any benefits [20-22]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The survival benefits of colon cancer surveillance programs are well delineated, but less is known about the magnitude of false positive testing. The objective of this study was to estimate the false positive rate and positive predictive value of testing as part of a surveillance program based on national guidelines, and to estimate the degree of testing and resource use needed to identify a curable recurrence. Analysis of clinically significant events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, false positive events, true cancer recurrences, time to confirmation of diagnosis, and resource use (radiology, blood samples, colonoscopies, consultations) among patients included in a randomised colon cancer surveillance trial. 110 patients surgically treated for colon cancer were followed according to national guidelines for 1884 surveillance months. 1105 tests (503 blood samples, 278 chest x-rays, 209 liver ultrasounds, 115 colonoscopies) and 1186 health care consultations were performed. Of the 48 events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, 34 (71%) represented false positives. Thirty-one (65%) were initiated by new symptoms, and 17 (35%) were initiated by test results. Fourteen patients had true cancer recurrence; 7 resections of recurrent disease were performed, 4 of which were successful R0 metastasis Resections. 276 tests and 296 healthcare consultations were needed per R0 resection; the cost per R0 surgery was [pound sign] 103207. There was a 29% probability (positive predictive value) of recurrent cancer when a diagnostic work-up was initiated based on surveillance testing or patient complaints. We observed a high false positive rate and low positive predictive value for significant clinical events suggestive of possible colorectal cancer relapse in the setting of a post-treatment surveillance program based on national guidelines. Providers and their patients should have an appreciation for the modest positive predictive value inherent in colorectal cancer surveillance programs in order to make informed choices, which maximize quality of life during survivorship. Better means of tailoring surveillance programs based on patient risk would likely lead to more effective and cost-effective post-treatment follow-up.Trial registration: identifier NCT00572143. Date of trial registration: 11th of December 2007.
    BMC Health Services Research 03/2014; 14(1):137. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-137 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Revue des Maladies Respiratoires Actualites 10/2012; 4(5):374–378. DOI:10.1016/S1877-1203(12)70269-0
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 01/2013; 63(2). DOI:10.3322/caac.21172 · 115.84 Impact Factor
Show more