Components necessary for high-quality lung cancer screening: American college of chest physicians and American thoracic society policy statement

Chest

Volumn 147, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 295-303

  Mazzone, Peter ^a   Powell, Charles A ^b   Arenberg, Douglas ^c   Bach, Peter ^d   Detterbeck, Frank ^e   Gould, Michael K ^f   Jaklitsch, Michael T ^g   Jett, James ^h   Naidich, David ⁱ   Vachani, Anil ^j   Wiener, Renda Soylemez ^k,l   Silvestri, Gerard ^m  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e Thoracic Surgery   (United States)

^f KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^g BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^h DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^k VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^l BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^m MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER CENTER; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NODULE; MEDICAL EXPERT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MASS SCREENING; RADIOGRAPHY; STANDARDS; UTILIZATION;

HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MASS SCREENING; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOLITARY PULMONARY NODULE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84927911832     PISSN: 00123692     EISSN: 19313543     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1378/chest.14-2500     Document Type: Note

References (29)

1. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefi ts and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012; 307 ( 22): 2418-2429.
2. Detterbeck FC, Mazzone PJ, Naidich DF, Bach PB. Screening for lung cancer. Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143(5-suppl):e78S-e92S.
3. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160 ( 5): 330-338.
4. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365 ( 5): 395-409.
5. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Benefi ts and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening programs for highrisk populations. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. AHRQ Publication No. 13-05196-EF-2.
6. Kovalchik SA, Tammemagi M, Berg CD, et al. Targeting of lowdose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369 ( 3): 245-254.
7. Bach PB, Kattan MW, Th ornquist MD, et al. Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95 ( 6): 470-478.
8. Spitz MR, Hong WK, Amos CI, et al. A risk model for prediction of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99 ( 9): 715-726.
9. Cassidy A, Myles JP, van Tongeren M, et al. The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 1008; 98: 270-276.
10. Tammemägi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, et al. Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368 ( 8): 728-736.
11. Hoggart C, Brennan P, Tjonneland A, et al. A risk model for lung cancer incidence. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012; 5 ( 6): 834-846.
12. Horeweg N, van der Aalst CM, Th unnissen E, et al. Characteristics of lung cancers detected by computer tomography screening in the randomized NELSON trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013; 187 ( 8): 848-854.
13. ACR-STR practice parameter for the performance and reporting of lung cancer screening thoracic computed tomography (CT). American College of Radiology website. http://www. acr. org/~/ media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/LungScreening. pdf. Accessed July 31, 2014.
14. Church TR, Black WC, Aberle DR, et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368 ( 21): 1980-1991.
15. Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD, et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369 ( 10): 920-931.
16. Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Spaggiari L, et al. Diagnostic performance of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer over fi ve years. J Th orac Oncol. 2014; 9 ( 7): 935-939.
17. Lopes Pegna A, Picozzi G, Falaschi F, et al; ITALUNG Study Research Group. Four-year results of low-dose CT screening and nodule management in the ITALUNG trial. J Th orac Oncol. 2013; 8( 7): 866-875.
18. van den Bergh KAM, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJJM, et al. Shortterm health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON). Br J Cancer. 2010; 102 ( 1): 27-34.
19. Slatore CG, Baumann C, Pappas M, Humphrey LL. Smoking behaviors among patients receiving computed tomography for lung cancer screening. Systematic review in support of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Am Th orac Soc. 2014; 11 ( 4): 619-627.
20. Lung-RADS version 1. 0 assessment categories release date: April 28, 2014. American College of Radiology website. http://www. acr. org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/ LungRADS/AssessmentCategories. Accessed July 31, 2014.
21. Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR, et al. Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: When is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5-suppl):e93S-e120S.
22. MacMahon H, Austin JHM, Gamsu G, et al; Fleischner Society. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005; 237 ( 2): 395-400.
23. Naidich DP, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, et al. Recommendations for the management of subsolid pulmonary nodules detected at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2013; 266 ( 1): 304-317.
24. Patz EF Jr, Pinsky P, Gatsonis C, et al; NLST Overdiagnosis Manuscript Writing Team. Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174 ( 2): 269-274.
25. Slatore CG, Sullivan DR, Pappas M, Humphrey LL. Patient-centered outcomes among lung cancer screening recipients with computed tomography: a systematic review. J Th orac Oncol. 2014;9(7):927-934.
26. Wiener RS, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Clark JA. What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules. Chest. 2013; 143 ( 3): 672-677.
27. Slatore CG, Press N, Au DH, Curtis JR, Wiener RS, Ganzini L. What the heck is a "nodule"? A qualitative study of veterans with pulmonary nodules. Ann Am Th orac Soc. 2013; 10 ( 4): 330-335.
28. Peto R, Darby S, Deo H, Silcocks P, Whitley E, Doll R. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ. 2000; 321 ( 7257): 323-329.
29. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, et al. Cost-eff ectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Th orac Oncol. 2011; 6 ( 11): 1841-1848.