Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Article CommentaryDepartmentsA

Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care

Katy Rooney
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2020, 18 (3) iii; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2540
Katy Rooney
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • RE: Commentary for “Results of Lung Cancer Screening in the Community”
    Serena Korkmaz, Nick Bonamici, Sonia Gilani, Brooke Heibel, Madeline Hunt, Jonathan Knisley, Nathan Pfister and Matt Wendell
    Published on: 21 September 2020
  • Published on: (21 September 2020)
    RE: Commentary for “Results of Lung Cancer Screening in the Community”
    • Serena Korkmaz, Medical Student, University of Illinois College of Medicine Rockford
    • Other Contributors:
      • Nick Bonamici, Medical Student
      • Sonia Gilani, Medical Student
      • Brooke Heibel, Medical Student
      • Madeline Hunt, Medical Student
      • Jonathan Knisley, Medical Student
      • Nathan Pfister, Medical Student
      • Matt Wendell, Medical Student

    The study “Results of Lung Cancer Screening in the Community” was conducted to address concerns regarding the generalizability of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) findings to community settings. The previous NLST study reported a 20% decrease in lung cancer mortality using lung cancer screening (LCS) in high risk patient populations. However, the NLST study utilized expert medical centers in the detection and treatment of lung cancer. This paper seeks to evaluate LCS in non-university, tertiary care, community settings.
    Patients were recruited from a wide array of settings including non-university tertiary clinics, community medical centers, and free-standing imaging centers. Primary care physicians referred patients for screening, and shared decision making preceding a patient receiving a low-dose CT scan. All CT scans were categorized into 4 categories, with category 1-3 being negative, benign, or probably benign respectively. Category 4 scans, which were suspicious for lung cancer, were reviewed by a multidisciplinary thoracic disease conference. The conference included physicians from a variety of specialties including medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, and pulmonology. The group agreed that having a dedicated group of highly specialized physicians to review scans would be difficult to achieve in community settings, especially those with limited resources. Furthermore, patients with suspected lung cancer were scheduled to follow-up wi...

    Show More

    The study “Results of Lung Cancer Screening in the Community” was conducted to address concerns regarding the generalizability of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) findings to community settings. The previous NLST study reported a 20% decrease in lung cancer mortality using lung cancer screening (LCS) in high risk patient populations. However, the NLST study utilized expert medical centers in the detection and treatment of lung cancer. This paper seeks to evaluate LCS in non-university, tertiary care, community settings.
    Patients were recruited from a wide array of settings including non-university tertiary clinics, community medical centers, and free-standing imaging centers. Primary care physicians referred patients for screening, and shared decision making preceding a patient receiving a low-dose CT scan. All CT scans were categorized into 4 categories, with category 1-3 being negative, benign, or probably benign respectively. Category 4 scans, which were suspicious for lung cancer, were reviewed by a multidisciplinary thoracic disease conference. The conference included physicians from a variety of specialties including medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, and pulmonology. The group agreed that having a dedicated group of highly specialized physicians to review scans would be difficult to achieve in community settings, especially those with limited resources. Furthermore, patients with suspected lung cancer were scheduled to follow-up with thoracic specialists who were locally and nationally recognized. Additionally, almost all follow-up (99.9%) went through the study’s LCS coordinator. Thus, an LCS coordinator appeared essential for successful follow-up.
    The demographics of patients in the study were 86% white, 44% were 55-64 years, 56% were 65-81 years, 50% male and female, 40% were former smokers, and 60% were current smokers. The authors stated their patient population group was more diverse than the LCS study (which reported 91% white). However, the group agreed that the difference was minimal and that there was little diversity as 86% of their patient population is white. The group agreed that data regarding insurance status, hospital setting (whether it was a community setting or not), and information regarding socioeconomic status would be beneficial. Furthermore, collecting and stratifying patients based on zip code would provide increased information on whether patients were in urban or rural areas.
    Of the 4,666 initial referrals, 3,402 patients were included in the study. Reasons for excluding the 1,264 individuals were not reported. The group thought it could be concerning as patients may have been excluded due to factors such as lack of insurance or distance from CT scanners. Of the 3,402 patients included, 2,791 (82%) had enrolled or completed the LCS during the study period.
    Of the patients included in the study, 500 patients required further imaging with 501 additional chest CT’s ordered. 176 patients underwent invasive interventions including 141 invasive diagnostic procedures and 85 surgeries. There were 12 diagnostic and 11 surgical complications reported. The most common diagnostic procedure complication was pneumothorax with 10 reported, and among the surgical complications, there were 2 deaths. However, adverse events were not correlated to the stage of lung cancer. Increased information would allow for better understanding of the risks as it would be expected that patients diagnosed at a higher stage of lung cancer experienced more adverse effects. A promising result was that no adverse events were reported with the initial CT scan.
    Of the 2,791 patients enrolled in LCS, 95 were diagnosed with lung cancer with 67 patients diagnosed as early stage non-small cell lung cancer. An additional 16 cancers were diagnosed including renal, breast, and colon cancers. The group agreed the results of the screening were promising as 70% of lung cancers detected were in early stages allowing for more effective treatments and reduced mortality. However, healthcare system type of the patients was not reported. This information would be useful to determine if there was a marked difference in diagnosis rates depending on the patient’s healthcare systems.
    The authors admit that the study may not be very generalizable as it was conducted in an integrated health care system (Providence St Joseph Health). In areas where the healthcare system is not integrated, such as in cities with competing healthcare systems, the results of LCS may be less than favorable. Furthermore, the study utilized locally and nationally recognized chest specialists in their thoracic oncology program. This further weakens the generalizability of the study as many healthcare systems, especially community programs, do not have the resources to employ a highly specialized team. The generalizability of the study is further limited as socioeconomic information of the patients were not included. Lower socioeconomic communities tend to have lower resources and difficulty following up due to a number of factors such as lack of insurance, inability to miss work, difficulty obtaining child care, inadequate transportation, and a long commute to healthcare which may alter the success of a LCS program. Additionally, the group agreed that a cost vs benefit analysis of the screening would be useful as an expensive screening with small benefit may be difficult to implement in financially struggling health centers.
    The conclusion of the paper that LCS in community settings can be successfully performed was not completely supported by the data. The data does not stratify the patient pools based on location of initial referral, or differentiate the results based on whether the patient was located in a community or another hospital system. Therefore, the proportion of patients from community settings was unknown. The demographic information of the patients is limited, and it is unknown if patients identified with lung cancer were from community centers. The group acknowledges that the data may have been removed from the paper in interest of cohesiveness and space, and overall thought the study was conducted to a high standard.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 18 (3)
The Annals of Family Medicine
Vol. 18, Issue 3
May/June 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
9 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care
Katy Rooney
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2020, 18 (3) iii; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2540

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care
Katy Rooney
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2020, 18 (3) iii; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2540
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • HOW IT WORKS
    • CURRENT SELECTION
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Peer-Reviewed reports in Medical Education Research (PRIMER) Accepted for Inclusion in Pubmed Central
  • Evolving Certification to Meet Today’s Needs: The ABFM’s KSA Revision Initiative
  • Should We Screen for Hearing Loss in the Older Adult?
Show more Departments

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Online First

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine