Patient Adherence to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System–Recommended Screening Intervals in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Nevertheless, patient adherence to recommended intervals varies, potentially diminishing benef...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Yannan, Fu, Mingzhou, Ding, Ruiwen, Inoue, Kosuke, Jeon, Christie Y., Hsu, William, Aberle, Denise R., Prosper, Ashley Elizabeth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2021
Materias:
Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8692358/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34624528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2021.09.013
Descripción
Sumario:Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Nevertheless, patient adherence to recommended intervals varies, potentially diminishing benefit from screening. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and major radiology and oncology conference archives between April 28, 2014, and December 17, 2020. Eligible studies mentioned patient adherence to the recommendations of Lung-RADS. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189326). We identified 24 eligible studies for qualitative summary, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled adherence rate was 57% (95% confidence interval: 46%–69%) for defined adherence (e.g., an annual incidence screen was performed within 15 mo) among 6689 patients and 65% (95% confidence interval: 55%–75%) for anytime adherence among 5085 patients. Large heterogeneity in adherence rates between studies was observed (I(2) = 99% for defined adherence, I(2) = 98% for anytime adherence). Heterogeneous adherence rates were associated with Lung-RADS scores, with significantly higher adherence rates among Lung-RADS 3 to 4 than Lung-RADS 1 to 2 (p < 0.05). Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical LCS programs in the United States, especially among patients with results of Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2. To improve adherence rates, future research may focus on implementing tailored interventions after identifying barriers to LCS. We also propose a minimum standardized set of data elements for future pooled analyses of LCS adherence on the basis of our findings.

Ejemplares similares