4.5 Review

Ongoing challenges in implementation of lung cancer screening

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL LUNG CANCER RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 2347-2355

出版社

AME PUBLISHING COMPANY
DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-2021-1

关键词

Lung cancer; screening; lung cancer screening (LCS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Europe and globally, with a low five-year survival rate. Screening for lung cancer can improve outcomes, but challenges such as high-risk individual selection and nodule classification standardization need to be addressed to successfully implement screening programs.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Europe and around the world. Although available therapies have undergone considerable development in the past decades, the five-year survival rate for lung cancer remains low. This sobering outlook results mainly from the advanced stages of cancer most patients are diagnosed with. As the population at risk is relatively well defined and early stage disease is potentially curable, lung cancer outcomes may be improved by screening. Several studies already show that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality. However, for a successful implementation of LCS programmes, several challenges have to be overcome: selection of high-risk individuals, standardization of nodule classification and measurement, specific training of radiologists, optimization of screening intervals and screening duration, handling of ancillary findings are some of the major points which should be addressed. Last but not least, the psychological impact of screening on screened individuals and the impact of potential false positive findings should not be neglected. The aim of this review is to discuss the different challenges of implementing LCS programmes and to give some hints on how to overcome them. Finally, we will also discuss the psychological impact of screening on quality of life and the importance of smoking cessation.

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

4.5
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