Article

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: 7.13). 12/2010; 38(1):154-61. DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00123410
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Followers
 · 
98 Views
  • 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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has sparked new interest in the adoption of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). If adopted at a national level, LDCT screening may prevent approximately 18,000 lung cancer deaths per year, potentially constituting a high-value public health intervention. Before incorporating LDCT screening into practice, health care institutions need to consider the risks associated with LDCT screening and the impact of LDCT screening on health care costs, as well as other remaining areas of uncertainty, including the unknown cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening. This article will review the benefits and risks of LDCT screening in light of the results of the NLST and other randomized trials, it will discuss the additional health care costs associated with LDCT screening from the perspective of health care payers, and it will examine the published cost-effectiveness analyses of LDCT screening. A subsequent discussion highlights guideline recommendations for implementation strategies, the goals of which are to ensure that those eligible for LDCT screening derive the benefits while minimizing the risks of screening and avoiding an unnecessary escalation in screening-related costs. The article concludes by endorsing the use of LDCT screening in institutions capable of responsible implementation of screening in both medical and economical terms. The key elements of responsible implementation include the development of standardized screening practices, careful selection of screening candidates, and the creation of prospective registries that will mitigate current areas of uncertainty regarding LDCT screening.
    The Oncologist 07/2013; DOI:10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0007