programas cribado cancer

Nota bibliográfica cribado c pulmón 2014-11

Gould MK. Lung cancer screening and elderly adults: do we have sufficient evidence?. Ann Intern Med. United States; 2014;161(9):672–3. doi: 10.7326/M14-2006. PMID: 25199784.

Yip R, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Smith JP. CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Alternative Definitions of Positive Test Result Based on the National Lung Screening Trial and International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Databases. Radiology. United States; 2014;273(2):591–6. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132950. PMID: 24955929.

Conclusion The NLST National Lung Screening Trial results are similar to those previously reported for the I-ELCAP International Early Lung Cancer Action Program and suggest that, even for high-risk participants in the NLST National Lung Screening Trial , higher thresholds of nodule size should be considered and prospectively evaluated. (c) RSNA, 2014.

MacMahon H, Bankier AA, Naidich DP. Lung Cancer Screening: What Is the Effect of Using a Larger Nodule Threshold Size to Determine Who Is Assigned to Short-term CT Follow-up?. Radiology. United States; 2014;273(2):326–7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14141860. PMID: 25340268.
Tanoue LT, Tanner NT, Gould MK, Silvestri GA. Lung Cancer Screening. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014; doi: 10.1164/rccm.201410-1777CI. PMID: 25369325.

 The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in adults of age 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and are currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years. This recommendation is largely based on the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial. Both policy-level and clinical decision-making about LDCT screening must consider both the potential benefits of screening (reduced mortality from lung cancer) and possible harms. Effective screening requires an appreciation that screening should be limited to individuals at high risk of death from lung cancer, and that the risk of harm related to false positive findings, overdiagnosis and unnecessary invasive testing is real. A comprehensive understanding of these aspects of screening will inform appropriate implementation, with the objective that an evidence based and systematic approach to screening will help to reduce the enormous mortality burden of lung cancer.

Ostroff JS. Quality lung cancer screening protects quality of life: No harm, no foul. Cancer. United States; 2014. p. 3275–6. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28835. PMID: 25065840.

Gareen IF, Duan F, Greco EM, Snyder BS, Boiselle PM, Park ER, et al. Impact of lung cancer screening results on participant health-related quality of life and state anxiety in the National Lung Screening Trial. Cancer. United States; 2014;120(21):3401–9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28833. PMID: 25065710.

CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter lung screening trial, participants receiving a false-positive or SIF screen result experienced no significant difference in HRQoL or state anxiety at 1 or at 6 months after screening relative to those receiving a negative result. Cancer 2014;120:3401-3409. (c) 2014 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Heuvelmans MA, Oudkerk M, de Jong PA, Mali WP, Groen HJM, Vliegenthart R. The impact of radiologists’ expertise on screen results decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial. Eur Radiol. 2014; doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3467-4. PMID: 25366707.

CONCLUSION: In one in 20 cases of baseline lung cancer screening, nodules were reclassified by the radiologist, leading to a reduction of false-positive screen results. KEY POINTS: * The NELSON study allowed radiologists to manually adjust the screen result * At baseline, radiologists adjusted the result in about one in 20 cases (95.4 % downwards) * Radiologists' adjustments led to a 22 % reduction of false-positive screen results * Radiologists' expertise can improve nodule classification in addition to a nodule protocol.

Gierada DS, Pinsky P, Nath H, Chiles C, Duan F, Aberle DR. Projected outcomes using different nodule sizes to define a positive CT lung cancer screening examination.J Natl Cancer Inst. United States; 2014;106(11). doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju284. PMID: 25326638.

CONCLUSION: Raising the nodule size threshold for a positive screen would substantially reduce false-positive CT screenings and medical resource utilization with a variable impact on screening outcomes.

Gould MK. Clinical practice. Lung-cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. N Engl J Med. United States; 2014;371(19):1813–20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1404071. PMID: 25372089.

Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Hocking W, Patz EF, Kramer BS. National Lung Screening Trial Findings by Age: Medicare-Eligible Versus Under-65 Population. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(9):627–33. Available from: doi: 10.7326/M14-1484. PMID: 25199624.

 Conclusion: NLST participants aged 65 years or older had a higher rate of false-positive screening results than those younger than 65 years but a higher cancer prevalence and PPV. Screen-detected cancer was treated similarly in the groups. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Vannier MW. Nodule size and overdiagnosis in lung cancer CT screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. United States; 2014. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju325. PMID: 25326639
web desarrollada y mantenida por :