Impact of lung cancer screening results on participant health-related quality of life and state anxiety in the National Lung Screening Trial

Cancer

Volumn 120, Issue 21, 2014, Pages 3401-3409

  Gareen, Ilana F ^a   Duan, Fenghai ^a   Greco, Erin M ^a   Snyder, Bradley S ^a   Boiselle, Phillip M ^b,c   Park, Elyse R ^c,d   Fryback, Dennis ^e   Gatsonis, Constantine ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

anxiety; clinical trials; lung cancer; quality of life; screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; SMOKING; STATE TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL TRIAL; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MASS SCREENING; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANXIETY; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84939264426     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28833     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2013.
2. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team;, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al., Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 395-409.
3. Moyer VA,; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 330-338.
4. Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E Jr, et al., American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63: 106-117.
5. O'Connor GT, Hatabu H,. Lung cancer screening, radiation, risks, benefits, and uncertainty. JAMA. 2012; 307: 2434-2435.
6. Harris RP, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, et al., The harms of screening: A proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174: 281-285.
7. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al., Early lung cancer action project: a summary of the findings on baseline screening. Oncologist. 2001; 6: 147-152.
8. Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Sloan JA, et al., Screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002; 165: 508-513.
9. MacMahon H, Austin JHM, Gamsu G, et al., Guidelines for management of small Pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005; 237: 395-400.
10. van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, et al., Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 2221-2229.
11. Hafslund B, Espehaug B, Nortvedt MW,. Effects of false-positive results in a breast screening program on anxiety, depression and health-related quality of life. Cancer Nurs. 2012; 35: E26-E34.
12. van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, et al., Short-term health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON). Br J Cancer. 2010; 102: 27-34.
13. Byrne MM, Weissfeld J, Roberts MS,. Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28: 917-925.
14. Jacobs PC, Mali WP, Grobbee DE, van der Graaf Y,. Prevalence of incidental findings in computed tomographic screening of the chest: a systematic review. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008; 32: 214-221.
15. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, Black WC, et al., The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology. 2011; 258: 243-253.
16. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD,. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Med Care. 1992; 30: 473-483.
17. Ware JE Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B,. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute; 1993.
18. Cormier L, Guillemin F, Valéri A, Fournier G, Cussenot O, Mangin P, Litwin MS,. Impact of prostate cancer screening on health-related quality of life in at-risk families. Urology. 2002; 59: 901-906.
19. Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ, Nijs HG, Kirkels WJ, van der Maas PJ, Schröder FH,. Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate cancer on health-related quality of life. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90: 925-931.
20. Hensley ML, Robson ME, Kauff ND, et al., Pre- and postmenopausal high-risk women undergoing screening for ovarian cancer: anxiety, risk perceptions, and quality of life. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 89: 440-446.
21. Taupin D, Chambers SL, Corbett M, Shadbolt B,. Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer improves quality of life measures: a population-based screening study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006; 4: 82.
22. Clauser SB, Arora NK, Bellizzi KM, Haffer SC, Topor M, Hays RD,. Disparities in HRQOL of cancer survivors and non-cancer managed care enrollees. Health Care Financ Rev. 2008; 29: 23-40.
23. McGovern PM, Gross CR, Krueger RA, Engelhard DA, Cordes JE, Church TR,. False-positive cancer screens and health-related quality of life. Cancer Nurs. 2004; 27: 347-352.
24. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L,. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age [see comments]. Br Med J. 1993; 306: 1437-1440.
25. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SK,. SF-36® Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1994.
26. Spielberger CD,. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists; 1983.
27. Hays RD, Woolley JM,. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 18: 419-423.
28. American College of Radiology Imaging Network, ACRIN #6654, Contemporary Screening for the Detection of Lung Cancer. http://www.acrin.org/Portals/0/Protocols/6654/Protocol-ACRIN%206654%20Amendment%2010,%2011.1.04.pdf.
29. Robert SA, Cherepanov D, Palta M, Dunham NC, Feeny D, Fryback DG,. Socioeconomic status and age variations in health-related quality of life: results from the national health measurement study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009; 64: 378-389.
30. Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG, Robert SA, Hays RD, Kaplan RM,. Gender differences in multiple underlying dimensions of health-related quality of life are associated with sociodemographic and socioeconomic status. Med Care. 2011; 49: 1021-1030.
31. Huber PJ,. Robust Statistics. New York, NY; Wiley; 1981.
32. Cameron AC, Trevedi PK,. Regression Analysis of Count Data. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
33. Park ER, Gareen IF, Jain A, et al., Examining whether lung screening changes risk perceptions: National Lung Screening Trial participants at 1-year follow-up. Cancer. 2013; 119: 1306-1313.
34. Park ER, Streck JM, Gareen IF, et al., A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among National Lung Screening Trial participants. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014; 16: 166-173.
35. Weinberg CR,. On pooling across strata when frequency matching has been followed in a cohort study. Biometrics. 1985; 41: 117-127.