TY - JOUR
T1 - An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement
T2 - Implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice
AU - Wiener, Renda Soylemez
AU - Gould, Michael K.
AU - Arenberg, Douglas A.
AU - Au, David H.
AU - Fennig, Kathleen
AU - Lamb, Carla R.
AU - Mazzone, Peter J.
AU - Midthun, David E.
AU - Napoli, Maryann
AU - Ost, David E.
AU - Powell, Charles A.
AU - Rivera, M. Patricia
AU - Slatore, Christopher G.
AU - Tanner, Nichole T.
AU - Vachani, Anil
AU - Wisnivesky, Juan P.
AU - Yoon, Sue H.
AU - Black, William C.
AU - Detterbeck, Frank
AU - Hirschowitz, Edward
AU - Jett, James
AU - Kinsinger, Linda
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2015 by the American Thoracic Society.
PY - 2015/10/1
Y1 - 2015/10/1
N2 - Rationale: Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals and is now recommended bymultiple organizations. However, LDCT screening is complex, and implementation requires careful planning to ensure benefits outweigh harms. Little guidance has been provided for sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs. Objectives: To promote successful implementation of comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe, effective, and sustainable. Methods: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and implementation science. The committee reviewed the evidence from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, surveys, and the experience of early-adopting LDCT screening programs and summarized potential strategies to implement LDCT screening programs successfully. Measurements and Main Results: We address steps that sites should consider during the main three phases of developing anLDCT screening program: planning, implementation, and maintenance. We present multiple strategies to implement the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent CHEST/ATS statement, which will allow sites to select the strategy that best fits with their local context and workflow patterns. Although we do not comment on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, we outline the necessary costs associated with starting and sustaining a high-quality LDCT screening program. Conclusions: Following the strategies delineated in this policy statement may help sites to develop comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe and effective.
AB - Rationale: Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals and is now recommended bymultiple organizations. However, LDCT screening is complex, and implementation requires careful planning to ensure benefits outweigh harms. Little guidance has been provided for sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs. Objectives: To promote successful implementation of comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe, effective, and sustainable. Methods: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and implementation science. The committee reviewed the evidence from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, surveys, and the experience of early-adopting LDCT screening programs and summarized potential strategies to implement LDCT screening programs successfully. Measurements and Main Results: We address steps that sites should consider during the main three phases of developing anLDCT screening program: planning, implementation, and maintenance. We present multiple strategies to implement the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent CHEST/ATS statement, which will allow sites to select the strategy that best fits with their local context and workflow patterns. Although we do not comment on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, we outline the necessary costs associated with starting and sustaining a high-quality LDCT screening program. Conclusions: Following the strategies delineated in this policy statement may help sites to develop comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe and effective.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943262834&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943262834&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1164/rccm.201508-1671ST
DO - 10.1164/rccm.201508-1671ST
M3 - Article
C2 - 26426785
AN - SCOPUS:84943262834
SN - 1073-449X
VL - 192
SP - 881
EP - 891
JO - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
JF - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
IS - 7
ER -