Implementing direct access to low-dose computed tomography in general practice--method, adaption and outcome

Louise Mahncke Guldbrandt, Torben Riis Rasmussen, Finn Rasmussen, Peter Vedsted, Louise Mahncke Guldbrandt, Torben Riis Rasmussen, Finn Rasmussen, Peter Vedsted

Abstract

Background: Early detection of lung cancer is crucial as the prognosis depends on the disease stage. Chest radiographs has been the principal diagnostic tool for general practitioners (GPs), but implies a potential risk of false negative results, while computed tomography (CT) has a higher sensitivity. The aim of this study was to describe the implementation of direct access to low-dose CT (LDCT) from general practice.

Methods: We conducted a cohort study nested in a randomised study. A total of 119 general practices with 266 GPs were randomised into two groups. Intervention GPs were offered direct access to chest LDCT combined with a Continuing Medical Education (CME) meeting on lung cancer diagnosis.

Results: During a 19-month period, 648 patients were referred to LDCT (0.18/1000 adults on GP list/month). Half of the patients needed further diagnostic work-up, and 15 (2.3%, 95% CI: 1.3-3.8%) of the patients had lung cancer; 60% (95% CI: 32.3-83.7%) in a localised stage. The GP referral rate was 61% higher for CME participants compared to non-participants.

Conclusion: Of all patients referred to LDCT, 2.3% were diagnosed with lung cancer with a favourable stage distribution. Half of the referred patients needed additional diagnostic work-up. There was an association between participation in CME and use of CT scan. The proportion of cancers diagnosed through the usual fast-track evaluation was 2.2 times higher in the group of CME-participating GPs. The question remains if primary care case-finding with LDCT is a better option for patients having signs and symptoms indicating lung cancer than a screening program. Whether open access to LDCT may provide earlier diagnosis of lung cancer is yet unknown and a randomised trial is required to assess any effect on outcome.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01527214.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Participants (GPs) flow.
Figure 1. Participants (GPs) flow.

References

    1. Jemal A, Bray F (2011) Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61: 69–90.
    1. Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Bray F, Gjerstorff ML, et al. (2010) NORDCAN–a nordic tool for cancer information, planning, quality control and research. Acta Oncol 49: 725–736.
    1. Olesen F, Hansen RP, Vedsted P (2009) Delay in diagnosis: The experience in denmark. Br J Cancer 101: S5–S8.
    1. Probst HB, Hussain ZB, Andersen O (2012) Cancer patient pathways in denmark as a joint effort between bureaucrats, health professionals and politicians-A national danish project. Health Policy 105: 65–70.
    1. Barrett J, Hamilton W (2008) Pathways to the diagnosis of lung cancer in the UK: A cohort study. BMC Fam Pract 9: 31.
    1. Elliss-Brookes L, McPhail S, Ives A, Greenslade M, Shelton J, et al. (2012) Routes to diagnosis for cancer - determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer 107: 1220–1226.
    1. Neal RD, Allgar VL, Ali N, Leese B, Heywood P, et al. (2007) Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: Comparison between diagnostic routes. Br J Gen Pract 57: 212–219.
    1. Lyratzopoulos G, Neal RD, Barbiere JM, Rubin GP, Abel GA (2012) Variation in number of general practitioner consultations before hospital referral for cancer: Findings from the 2010 national cancer patient experience survey in england. Lancet Oncol.
    1. Lyratzopoulos G, Abel GA, McPhail S, Neal RD, Rubin GP (2013) Measures of promptness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: Secondary analysis of national audit data on patients with 18 common and rarer cancers. Br J Cancer 108: 686–690 10.1038/bjc.2013.1 [doi]
    1. Hamilton W, Peters TJ, Round A, Sharp D (2005) What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study. Thorax 60: 1059–1065.
    1. Bjerager M, Palshof T, Dahl R, Vedsted P, Olesen F (2006) Delay in diagnosis of lung cancer in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 56: 863–868.
    1. Quekel LG, Kessels AG, Goei R, van Engelshoven JM (1999) Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 115: 720–724.
    1. Stapley S, Sharp D, Hamilton W (2006) Negative chest X-rays in primary care patients with lung cancer. Br J Gen Pract 56: 570–573.
    1. Midthun DE, Jett JR (2013) Screening for lung cancer: The US studies. J Surg Oncol.
    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Church TR, Black WC, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al (2013) Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 368: 1980–1991.
    1. Hamilton W (2009) The CAPER studies: Five case-control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients. Br J Cancer 101 Suppl 2 S80–6 S80–S86.
    1. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, Herold CJ, Jett JR, et al. (2005) Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: A statement from the fleischner society. Radiology 237: 395–400.
    1. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, Giroux DJ, Groome PA, et al. (2007) 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 2: 706–714.
    1. Hansen RP, Vedsted P, Sokolowski I, Sondergaard J, Olesen F (2011) Time intervals from first symptom to treatment of cancer: A cohort study of 2,212 newly diagnosed cancer patients. BMC Health Serv Res 11: 284.
    1. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG (2004) CONSORT statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 328: 702–708.
    1. Jakobsen E, Palshof T, Osterlind K, Pilegaard H (2009) Data from a national lung cancer registry contributes to improve outcome and quality of surgery: Danish results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 35: 348–352.
    1. Gjerstorff ML (2011) The danish cancer registry. Scand J Public Health 39: 42–45.
    1. Andersen JS, Olivarius Nde F, Krasnik A (2011) The danish national health service register. Scand J Public Health 39: 34–37.
    1. Pedersen CB (2011) The danish civil registration system. Scand J Public Health 39: 22–25.
    1. Frank L, Christodoulou E, Kazerooni EA (2013) Radiation risk of lung cancer screening. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 34: 738–747 10.1055/s-0033-1358615 [doi]
    1. Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, Bach K, Hansen H, et al. (2009) The danish randomized lung cancer CT screening trial–overall design and results of the prevalence round. J Thorac Oncol 4: 608–614 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a0d98f
    1. Guldbrandt LM, Fenger-Gron M, Folkersen BH, Rasmussen TR, Vedsted P (2013) Reduced specialist time with direct computed tomography for suspected lung cancer in primary care. Dan Med J 60: A4738. A4738 [pii].
    1. O’Donnell CA (2000) Variation in GP referral rates: What can we learn from the literature? Fam Pract 17: 462–471.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다