癌症筛查和随访的障碍和促进因素。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Ethan Bernstein , Brett C. Bade , Kathleen M. Akgün , Michal G. Rose , Hilary C. Cain
{"title":"癌症筛查和随访的障碍和促进因素。","authors":"Ethan Bernstein ,&nbsp;Brett C. Bade ,&nbsp;Kathleen M. Akgün ,&nbsp;Michal G. Rose ,&nbsp;Hilary C. Cain","doi":"10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%–18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% <em>v</em> &gt;90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings — reflecting “real world” challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21750,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in oncology","volume":"49 3","pages":"Pages 213-219"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093775422000586/pdfft?md5=4a1bcd15cc2c5fc687688f98a80cd099&pid=1-s2.0-S0093775422000586-main.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up\",\"authors\":\"Ethan Bernstein ,&nbsp;Brett C. Bade ,&nbsp;Kathleen M. Akgün ,&nbsp;Michal G. Rose ,&nbsp;Hilary C. Cain\",\"doi\":\"10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.07.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%–18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% <em>v</em> &gt;90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings — reflecting “real world” challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in oncology\",\"volume\":\"49 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 213-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093775422000586/pdfft?md5=4a1bcd15cc2c5fc687688f98a80cd099&pid=1-s2.0-S0093775422000586-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093775422000586\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093775422000586","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

两项随机试验表明,低剂量计算机断层扫描(LDCT)肺癌筛查(LCS)通过识别早期癌症,在可实现局部治愈和控制的情况下,降低了肺恶性肿瘤高危患者的肺癌死亡率。LCS在美国的实施揭示了预防癌症护理的多重障碍。LCS的发生率低得令人失望,估计只有5%-18%的合格患者接受了筛查。同样值得关注的是,基线筛查后的随访率远低于临床试验(44-66% vs >90%)。为了优化LCS的效益,项目必须识别和解决与LCS参与和后续相关的因素,同时识别和减轻障碍。作为一种相对较新的筛查方法,LCS最有效的筛查方法尚不确定。因此,LCS项目采用了广泛的方法,但没有明确的最佳实践来指导它们,特别是在农村和资源有限的环境中。在这篇叙述性综述中,我们确定了LCS的障碍和促进因素,重点关注那些在非临床试验环境中的研究——反映了“现实世界”的挑战。我们的目标是确定有效和可扩展的LCS实践,这些实践将增加LCS的参与,提高后续的依从性,为质量改进策略提供信息,并支持新的研究方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up

Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%–18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% v >90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings — reflecting “real world” challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Seminars in oncology
Seminars in oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
104 days
期刊介绍: Seminars in Oncology brings you current, authoritative, and practical reviews of developments in the etiology, diagnosis and management of cancer. Each issue examines topics of clinical importance, with an emphasis on providing both the basic knowledge needed to better understand a topic as well as evidence-based opinions from leaders in the field. Seminars in Oncology also seeks to be a venue for sharing a diversity of opinions including those that might be considered "outside the box". We welcome a healthy and respectful exchange of opinions and urge you to approach us with your insights as well as suggestions of topics that you deem worthy of coverage. By helping the reader understand the basic biology and the therapy of cancer as they learn the nuances from experts, all in a journal that encourages the exchange of ideas we aim to help move the treatment of cancer forward.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信