The effect of direct access to CT scan in early lung cancer detection: an unblinded, cluster-randomised trial

Louise Mahncke Guldbrandt, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Torben Riis Rasmussen, Finn Rasmussen, Peter Meldgaard, Peter Vedsted, Louise Mahncke Guldbrandt, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Torben Riis Rasmussen, Finn Rasmussen, Peter Meldgaard, Peter Vedsted

Abstract

Background: Lower lung cancer survival rates in Britain and Denmark compared with surrounding countries may, in part, be due to late diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of direct access to low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) from general practice in early lung cancer detection on time to diagnosis and stage at diagnosis.

Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomised, controlled trial including all incident lung cancer patients (in 19-month period) listed with general practice in the municipality of Aarhus (300,000 citizens), Denmark. Randomisation and intervention were applied at general practice level. A total of 266 GPs from 119 general practices. In the study period, 331 lung cancer patients were included. The intervention included direct access to low-dose CT from primary care combined with a 1 h lung cancer update meeting. Indication for LDCT was symptoms or signs that raised the GP's suspicion of lung cancer, but fell short of satisfying the fast-track referral criteria on red flag' symptoms.

Results: The intervention did not significantly influence stage at diagnosis and had limited impact on time to diagnosis. However, when correcting for non-compliance, we found that the patients were at higher risk of experiencing a long diagnostic interval if their GPs were in the control group.

Conclusion: Direct low-dose CT from primary care did not statistically significantly decrease time to diagnosis or change stage at diagnosis in lung cancer patients. Case finding with direct access to LDCT may be an alternative to lung cancer screening. Furthermore, a recommendation of low-dose CT screening should consider offering symptomatic, unscreened patients an access to CT directly from primary care.

Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01527214.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Participants flow. *Percentage of patients with questionnaire data

References

    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107.
    1. Midthun DE, Jett JR. Screening for lung cancer: The US studies. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108(5):275-9. doi: 10.1002/jso.23391. Epub 2013 Aug 5.
    1. Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, Bach K, Hansen H, Toennesen P, et al. The Danish randomized lung cancer CT screening trial--overall design and results of the prevalence round. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(5):608–614. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a0d98f.
    1. Campbell J, Pyer M, Rogers S, Walter D, Reddy R. Enabling patients with respiratory symptoms to access chest X-rays on demand: the experience of the walk-in service in Corby, UK. J Public Health. 2013;36:511–6. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt104.
    1. Athey VL, Suckling RJ, Tod AM, Walters SJ, Rogers TK. Early diagnosis of lung cancer: evaluation of a community-based social marketing intervention. Thorax. 2012;67(5):412–417. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200714.
    1. Smith S, Fielding S, Murchie P, Johnston M, Wyke S, Powell R, et al. Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(606):e47–54. doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X660779.
    1. Allgar VL, Neal RD. Delays in the diagnosis of six cancers: analysis of data from the National Survey of NHS Patients: Cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(11):1959–1970. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602587.
    1. Nielsen TN, Hansen RP, Vedsted P. Symptom presentation in cancer patients in general practice. Ugeskr Laeger. 2010;172(41):2827–2831.
    1. Moth G, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Reasons for encounter and disease patterns in Danish primary care - changes over 16 years. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012;30(2):70–75. doi: 10.3109/02813432.2012.679230.
    1. Hamilton W. Five misconceptions in cancer diagnosis. Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59(563):441–5. doi: 10.3399/bjgp09X420860.
    1. Probst HB, Hussain ZB, Andersen O. Cancer patient pathways in Denmark as a joint effort between bureaucrats, health professionals and politicians-A national Danish project. Health Policy. 2012;105(1):65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.11.001.
    1. Olesen F, Hansen RP, Vedsted P. Delay in diagnosis: the experience in Denmark. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:S5–S8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605383.
    1. Hamilton W. The CAPER studies: five case–control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(Suppl 2):S80–S86. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605396.
    1. Barrett J, Hamilton W. Pathways to the diagnosis of lung cancer in the UK: a cohort study. BMC Fam Pract. 2008;9:31. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-9-31.
    1. Neal RD, Allgar VL, Ali N, Leese B, Heywood P, Proctor G, et al. Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(536):212–219.
    1. Bjerager M. Delay in diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. PhD Thesis. 2006.
    1. Schneider J. Early detection of lung cancers - Comparison of computed tomography, cytology and fuzzy-based tumor markers panels. Cancer Biomark. 2010;6(3–4):149–162.
    1. []
    1. Hamilton W, Peters TJ, Round A, Sharp D. What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case–control study. Thorax. 2005;60(12):1059–1065. doi: 10.1136/thx.2005.045880.
    1. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, Herold CJ, Jett JR, Naidich DP, et al. Fleischner Society: Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005;237(2):395–400. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2372041887.
    1. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, Giroux DJ, Groome PA, Rami-Porta R, et al. International association for the study of lung cancer international staging committee, participating institutions: the IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2(8):706–714. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31812f3c1a.
    1. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;328(7441):702–708. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702.
    1. Hansen RP, Vedsted P, Sokolowski I, Sondergaard J, Olesen F. Time intervals from first symptom to treatment of cancer: a cohort study of 2,212 newly diagnosed cancer patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):284. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-284.
    1. Guldbrandt LM, Rasmussen TR, Rasmussen F, Vedsted P. Implementing direct access to Low-dose computed tomography in general practice-method adaption and outcome. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112162.
    1. Beyer M, Neal RD, Hiom S, Muth C, Nafees S, Van RE, et al. The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(7):126210–1267.
    1. Pepek JM, Chino JP, Marks LB, D’amico TA, Yoo DS, Onaitis MW, et al. How well does the new lung cancer staging system predict for local/regional recurrence after surgery?: A comparison of the TNM 6 and 7 systems. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(4):757–761. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31821038c0.
    1. Jakobsen E, Palshof T, Osterlind K, Pilegaard H. Data from a national lung cancer registry contributes to improve outcome and quality of surgery: Danish results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;35(2):348–352. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.09.026.
    1. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish national patient register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7):30–33. doi: 10.1177/1403494811401482.
    1. []
    1. Timmermans B: The Danish Integrated Database for Labor Market Research: Towards Demystification for the English Speaking Audience. 2010, :1–17
    1. Pedersen CB. The Danish civil registration system. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7):22–25. doi: 10.1177/1403494810387965.
    1. Larsen MB, Jensen H, Hansen RP, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Identification of patients with incident cancers using administrative registry data. Dan Med J. 2014;61(2):A4777.
    1. Guldbrandt LM, Fenger-Grøn M, Rasmussen TR, Jensen H, Vedsted P. The role of general practice in routes to diagnosis of lung cancer in Denmark: a population-based study of general practice involvement, diagnostic activity and diagnostic intervals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:21. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0656-4.
    1. Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 1997;16(9):1017–1029. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<1017::AID-SIM508>;2-V.
    1. Frank L, Christodoulou E, Kazerooni EA. Radiation risk of lung cancer screening. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;34(6):738–747. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1358615.
    1. Toftegaard B, Bro F, Vedsted P. A geographical cluster randomised stepped wedge study of continuing medical education and cancer diagnosis in general practice. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0159-z.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다