4.7 Article

Multidisciplinary Team-Based Management of Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules

期刊

CHEST
卷 157, 期 4, 页码 985-993

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.11.032

关键词

clinical decision-making; guidelines; lung neoplasm; lung nodule

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [T32DK070555]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Each year, > 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidentally detected lung nodule. Practice guidelines attempt to balance the benefit of early detection of lung cancer with the risks of diagnostic testing, but adherence to guidelines is low. The goal of this study was to determine guideline adherence rates in the setting of a multidisciplinary nodule clinic and describe reasons for nonadherence as well as associated outcomes. METHODS: This cohort study included 3 years of follow-up of patients aged >= 35 years with an incidentally detected lung nodule evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic that used the 2005 Fleischner Society Guidelines. RESULTS: Among 113 patients, 67% (95% CI, 58-76) were recommended a guidelineconcordant nodule evaluation; 7.1% (95% CI, 3.1-13) and 26% (95% CI, 18-25) were recommended less or more intense evaluation, respectively. In contrast, 58% (95% CI, 48-67), 22% (95% CI, 18-25), and 23% (95% CI, 16-32) received a guideline-concordant, less intense, or more intense evaluation. The most common reason for recommending guidelinediscordant care was concern for two different diagnoses that would each benefit from early detection and treatment. A majority of lung cancer diagnoses (88%) occurred in patients who received guideline-concordant care. There were no lung cancer cases in those who received less intense nodule care. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary nodule clinic may serve as a system-level intervention to promote guideline-concordant care, while also providing a multidisciplinary basis by which to deviate from guidelines to address the needs of a heterogeneous patient population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据