Background Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality. We sought to assess lung cancer screening practices and attitudes among primary care providers (PCPs) in the era of new LDCT screening guidelines. Methods In 2013, we surveyed PCPs at an academic medical center (60% response) and assessed: lung cancer screening use, perceived screening effectiveness, knowledge of screening guidelines, perceived barriers to LDCT use, and interest in LDCT screening education. Results Few PCPs (n=212) reported ordering lung cancer screening: chest x-ray (21%), LDCT (12%), and sputum cytology (3%). Only 47% of providers knew three or more of six guideline components for LDCT screening; 24% did not know any guideline components. In multiple logistic regression analysis, providers who knew three or more guideline components were more likely to order LDCT (OR 7.1, 95% CI 2.0-25.6). Many providers (30%) were unsure of the effectiveness of LDCT. Mammography, colonoscopy, and Pap smear were rated more frequently as effective in reducing cancer mortality compared to LDCT (all p-values < 0.0001). Common perceived barriers included patient cost (86.9% major or minor barrier), harm from false positives (82.7%), patients’ lack of awareness (81.3%), risk of incidental findings (81.3%), and insurance coverage (80.1%). Conclusions LDCT lung cancer screening is currently an uncommon practice at an academic medical center. PCPs report ordering chest x-ray, a non-recommended screening test, more often than LDCT. PCPs had a limited understanding of lung cancer screening guidelines and LDCT effectiveness. Provider educational interventions are needed to facilitate shared-decision making with patients.

Objectives Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality but has a high false-positive rate. The precision medicine approach to low-dose computed tomography screening assesses subjects' benefits versus harms based on their personal lung cancer risk, where harms include false-positive screens and resultant invasive procedures. We assess the relationship between lung cancer risk and the rate of false-positive LDCT screens. Methods The National Lung Screening Trial randomized high-risk subjects to three annual screens with low-dose computed tomography or chest radiographs. Following the completion of National Lung Screening Trial, the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) classification system was developed and retrospectively applied to National Lung Screening Trial low-dose computed tomography findings. The rate of false-positive screens (by Lung-RADS) and the resultant invasive procedures were examined as a function of lung cancer risk estimated by a model. Results Of 26,722 subjects randomized to the low-dose computed tomography arm, 26,309 received a baseline screen and were included in the analysis. The proportion with any false positive over three screening rounds increased from 12.9% to 25.9% from lowest to highest risk decile, and the proportion with an invasive procedure following a false positive also significantly increased from 0.7% to 2.0% from lowest to highest risk decile. Conclusion These findings indicate a need for personalized low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening decision aids to accurately convey the benefits to harm trade-off.

No abstract

Bronchoscopy is generally safe with few complications in most patients with COPD. Patients with objectively confirmed severe to very severe COPD had more frequent respiratory complications than patients without COPD. The risks were not prohibitively high, but should be taken into consideration for COPD patients undergoing moderate sedation flexible bronchoscopy.

APC is an effective method for tumor devitalization and reduction in tumor size, making it a viable and less costly therapeutic option for the treatment of benign endobronchial tumors.

Background: Diagnosing mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy and staging lung cancer with endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) are on the rise, but uncertainty surrounds the optimal number of cases needed to achieve acceptable yields. Objectives: To determine the threshold at which EBUS-TBNA reaches adequate yields among trainees and skilled bronchoscopists. Methods: We reviewed all EBUS-TBNAs performed at our medical center since implementing the use of EBUS (n = 222). Results: EBUS-TBNAs were performed in 222 patients (344 nodes). The percentage of adequate specimens sampled (diagnostic specimens or nodal tissue) rose from 66% in 2008 to 90% in 2012 (p < 0.01) and cancer yield improved from 34% in 2008 to 48% in 2012 (p < 0.01). Attending physicians who performed an average of more than 10 procedures per year had higher yields compared to those who performed fewer than 10 procedures per year (86 vs. 68%, p < 0.01). The yield of trainees also improved with every 10 procedures (79, 90 and 95%, p < 0.001) and that of attending physicians with experience (1-25 procedures: 78% yield, 26-50 procedures: 87% yield and 50+ procedures: 90% yield; p < 0.01). Among trainees, failure rates declined steadily. Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA yield (malignant and benign) increases with increasing experience amongst experienced bronchoscopists and trainees as early as the first 20-25 procedures. Pulmonary trainees had a rapid decline in failure rates. These findings suggest that in an academic environment a minimum of 20-25 procedures is needed to achieve acceptable yields.

Objective Health systems could adopt population-level approaches to screening by identifying potential screening candidates from the electronic health record and reaching out to them via the patient portal. However, whether patients would read or act on sent information is unknown. We examined the feasibility of this digital health outreach strategy. Methods We conducted a single-arm pragmatic trial in a large academic health system. An electronic health record algorithm identified primary care patients who were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS). Identified patients were sent a patient portal invitation to visit a LCS interactive Web site which assessed screening eligibility and included a decision aid. The primary outcome was screening completion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who read the invitation, visited the interactive Web site, and completed the interactive Web site. Results We sent portal invitations to 1,000 patients. Almost all patients (86%, 862/1,000) read the invitation, 404 (40%) patients visited the interactive Web site, and 349 patients (35%) completed it. Of the 99 patients who were confirmed screening eligible by the Web site, 81 made a screening decision (30% wanted screening, 44% unsure, 26% declined screening), and 22 patients had a chest computed tomography completed. Conclusion The digital outreach strategy reached the majority of patient portal users. While the study focused on LCS, this digital outreach approach could be generalized to other health needs. Given the broad reach and potential low cost of this digital strategy, future research should investigate best practices for implementing the system.

No abstract