Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer related deaths in Ontario and throughout Canada. The 5-year survival rate for those diagnosed with lung cancer in 2020 was approximately 22.2%. Poor screening techniques is the main cause of low survival rates and late detection. Recent advancements in screening for lung cancer have led researchers to look at the benefits of using low-dose CT (LDCT) scanning to screen patients at high risk for lung cancer in order to detect the cancer in its earlier stages. There is strong evidence that using this new method of testing in lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer related mortality by increasing the chance that the disease is detected in an earlier stage and in turn improving the patient’s chance at life saving treatment. Lung cancer screening requires LDCT resources and, based on the current recommendations, there is a concern that the new demand for imaging may exceed existing capacity of the imaging centers. This research evaluates impact of the Lung Cancer Screening Pilot for People at High Risk on the imaging resources and aims to answer the question: What would be the system performance for different imaging policies assuming a fixed imaging capacity? Administrative data from the Ottawa Hospital (TOH) as well as data from other research projects were used in order to develop and populate a simulation model. The policies that were assessed include: using biannual screening for patients who receive a negative baseline scan, using annual screening for patients with a negative baseline scan with all suspicious patients returning for a follow-up scan in six months, using annual screening for patients with a negative baseline scan with all suspicious patients returning for a follow-up scan in three months, using biannual screening for patients with a negative baseline scan with all suspicious patients returning for a follow-up scan in six months and using biannual screening for patients with a negative baseline scan with all suspicious patients returning for a follow-up scan in three months. These policies were assessed by looking at wait times for patients to be screened. Possible shift between lung cancer stages was also considered. The impact of this study is to look at system performances for different screening policies that could be used assuming a fixed imaging capacity. It represents a first step for further research should the data that is needed become available.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Prevention and early detection of lung cancer are imperative in decreasing lung cancer mortality. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) decreases lung cancer by 20%. Several organizations introduced lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in 2013, including Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and the United States Preventive Services Task Force. However, LCS participation for eligible patients remains low, due in part to the complexity of the LCS process. The goal of this practice improvement project was to increase the knowledge of rural primary care providers regarding LCS guidelines and the related CMS requirements and to increase their confidence in initiating shared decision-making (SDM) discussions. An educational intervention consisting of a LCS educational session and a toolkit was implemented in two rural clinics. Providers at both clinics reported a benefit to the educational intervention. Pre-, immediate post-, and two-month post-education surveys were collected to evaluate the impact of the educational intervention, including provider knowledge of LCS guidelines and CMS requirements, and confidence in SDM. Project results demonstrated an increased knowledge of LCS guidelines and CMS requirements with the greatest knowledge at immediate post-education and a high level of knowledge remaining at two months post-education. A small, nonsignificant, increase in provider confidence in initiating SDM discussions occurred. At both clinics, data collected through chart audit demonstrated an improvement in documentation needed to determine LCS eligibility and increased the percentage of patients identified at high risk for lung cancer and thus, eligible for LCS. At one clinic these changes were significant. The data were further examined for SDM discussions and referrals for LDCT or to specialist for LCS with one clinic increasing SDM documentation and LDCT referrals post-education. In conclusion, although further research is needed in implementation processes of LCS, specifically in consistent documentation to improve determination of LCS eligibility of patients, this practice improvement project found education increased provider knowledge and ability to complete requirements needed to improve LDCT screenings for lung cancer.

Yes / Objectives; To evaluate radiation doses for all low-dose CT scans performed during the first year of a lung screening trial. Methods; For all lung screening scans that were performed using a CT protocol that delivered image quality meeting the RSNA QIBA criteria, , radiation dose metrics, participant height, weight, gender and age were recorded. Values of CTDIvol and DLP were evaluated as a function of weight in order to assess the performance of the scan protocol across the participant cohort. Calculated effective doses were used to establish the additional lifetime attributable cancer risks arising from trial scans. Results; Median values of CTDIvol, DLP and effective dose (IQR) from the 3521 scans were 1.1mGy (0.70), 42.4mGycm (24.9) and 1.15mSv (0.67), whilst for 60-80kg participants the values were 1.0mGy (0.30), 35.8mGycm (11.4) and 0.97mSv (0.31). A statistically significant correlation between CTDIvol and weight was identified for males (r=0.9123, p<0.001) and females (r=0.9052, p<0.001), however the effect of gender on CTDIvol was not statistically significant (p=0.2328) despite notable differences existing at the extremes of the weight range. The additional lifetime attributable cancer risks from a single scan were in the range 0.001-0.006%. Conclusions; Low radiation doses can be achieved across a typical lung screening cohort using scan protocols that have been shown to deliver high levels of image quality. The observed dose levels may be considered as typical values for lung screening scans on similar types of scanner for an equivalent participant cohort. Advances in Knowledge; Presentation of typical radiation dose levels for CT lung screening examinations in a large UK trial. Effective radiation doses can be of the order of 1mSv for standard sized participants. Lifetime attributable cancer risks resulting from a single LDCT scan did not exceed 0.006%. / The Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research (award reference L403).

Background and aim: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer incidence and mortality in Canada. Population-based screening programs using low dose computed tomography are being more widely used. Screening reduces lung cancer mortality. It also introduces potential ethical issues that need to be elucidated to inform the ethical, equitable, and effective implementation of screening programs. This aim of this research was to begin developing an understanding of what the ethical issues are and how they are being, and should be, approached in health policy. Methods: Using empirical ethics inquiry, this research produced descriptive evidence via three independent studies: a systematic literature review and mixed methods integrative synthesis of public perspectives on screening benefits and harms, and two qualitative description studies about public and key informants’ ethical and social values on ethical issues in screening. Results: The major finding of this research was the preponderance of ethical issues located within health and social systems and structures, including equity of screening access, stigma against people who currently smoke commercial tobacco, commercialization of tobacco, and the need for increased investment in primary prevention of lung cancer. These ethical issues reflect the social, economic, and political determinants of lung cancer and the means available to reduce the burden of lung cancer in Canada, including but not limited to screening. In health policy, there was a lack of ethical frameworks or principles currently being used to address these ethical issues and the sometimes-conflicting perspectives found between the public and key informants. Discussion: Future empirical and normative research is needed to understand ethical and social values related to screening by populations with high lung cancer incidence and mortality, and to integrate empirical evidence with appropriate ethical theories to make recommendations for ethical, equitable, and effective population-based LDCT lung cancer screening policy in Canada. / Thesis / Candidate in Philosophy / Lung cancer is the top cause of cancer in Canada. An estimated 30,000 people were diagnosed with lung cancer and 20,700 people died from lung cancer in 2022. Screening is being more widely used to find and treat lung cancer in earlier stages. There are some ethical questions to consider, like how to ensure that screening programs are fair and effective. This research focused on understanding what the ethical issues are and how they could be solved in health policy. Perspectives on ethical issues were collected and analyzed from the public and lung cancer screening leaders. The two major ethical issues were fair access to screening and stigma against people who currently smoke commercial tobacco. There was a lack of ethical guidance to address these issues in health policy. Ethical concepts about justice and individual choice, and ethics research with key communities, may help navigate ethical issues in health policy.

Purpose. Low-dose computed tomography is an important imaging modality for screening and surveillance of lung cancer. The goal of this study was to determine the extent to which dose could be minimized while maintaining diagnostic accuracy through knowledgeable selection of reconstruction techniques. Methods. An anthropomorphic phantom was imaged on a 320-slice volumetric CT scanner. Detectability of small solid lung nodules was evaluated as a function of dose, patient size, reconstruction filter and slice thickness by means of 9-alternative forced-choice observer tests. Results. Nodule detectability decreased sharply below a threshold dose level due to increased image noise. For large body habitus, optimal (smooth) filter selection reduced dose by a factor of ~3. Nodule detectability decreased for slice thicknesses larger than the nodule diameter. Conclusions. Radiation dose can be reduced well below current clinical protocols. Smooth reconstruction filters and avoidance of large slice thickness permits lower-dose techniques without tradeoff in diagnostic performance.

Purpose. Low-dose computed tomography is an important imaging modality for screening and surveillance of lung cancer. The goal of this study was to determine the extent to which dose could be minimized while maintaining diagnostic accuracy through knowledgeable selection of reconstruction techniques. Methods. An anthropomorphic phantom was imaged on a 320-slice volumetric CT scanner. Detectability of small solid lung nodules was evaluated as a function of dose, patient size, reconstruction filter and slice thickness by means of 9-alternative forced-choice observer tests. Results. Nodule detectability decreased sharply below a threshold dose level due to increased image noise. For large body habitus, optimal (smooth) filter selection reduced dose by a factor of ~3. Nodule detectability decreased for slice thicknesses larger than the nodule diameter. Conclusions. Radiation dose can be reduced well below current clinical protocols. Smooth reconstruction filters and avoidance of large slice thickness permits lower-dose techniques without tradeoff in diagnostic performance.

Lung cancer affects many individuals each year and accounts for many deaths around the globe. Lung cancer screening is a preventative health measure that has the ability to detect lung cancer earlier. The purpose of this project was to focus on the education of nursing staff within a community health system, with subsequent implementation of an electronic health record clinical decision support system, to create a direct referral pathway to lung cancer screening, delivered through patient education. The concept of prevention was the framework for this project design, which was further organized around the plan-do-study -act model, while taking into consideration the health belief model and theory of interpersonal relations. Using systemized dashboard reports within the electronic health record software, specific variables were targeted for data collection and analyzed for the purpose of this project. Final data demonstrated an increase of triple the programmatic volume of the previous year, directly following the implementation of the above initiative. Further comparative statistics bespeak to the significant needs of the community regarding tobacco dependence and lung cancer screening. High-risk individuals who are current or former smokers will benefit from this initiative by receiving education about lung cancer screening and tobacco dependence treatment while within the care of the community based health system. A nursing-driven pathway to preventative care could also serve other cancer screening programs effectively, as well as be applied to a variety of chronic disease comorbidities to make a significant positive social change.

Cancer is one of the main causes of death in the US. Lung cancer remains the highest killing form of cancer. Lung screening rates are low amongst the general population and even lower in minority populations. It is not well known what the barriers are for lung cancer screening. In order to investigate barriers, I created questions to add onto an existing questionnaire survey for an ongoing lung cancer screening research project. These questions focused on social determinants of health and the survey was administered to patients who were non-adherent to lung cancer screening. Patients reported cost concerns for screening, potential medical care costs, and ability to attend medical appointments as barriers to lung cancer screening. Both non-white and female patients reported more difficulties attending appointments than their white and male counterparts. Patient physician relationship and perceived racial discrimination were not barriers to lung cancer screening in the patient population surveyed. Further research needs to investigate specific details on these barriers to create interventions to increase lung cancer screening rates. / Urban Bioethics

No description available.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) counseling for lung cancer screening is recommended by multiple professional societies and mandated by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services since lung cancer screening has both benefits and risks. However, uptake of SDM counseling as well as lung cancer screening itself remain low. We sought to develop educational text messages about lung cancer screening as an innovative implementation intervention tool to promote patient-provider discussion about lung cancer screening. Methods: After the study team drafted educational text messages about lung cancer screening, informed by existing decision aids, participants who had had lung cancer screening were recruited and asked to review and edit text messages. After that, participants eligible for lung cancer screening without the previous screening experience were recruited and were asked to select the messages to be included in this text message intervention. The final set of 14 text messages were delivered to the participants both with and without the previous lung cancer screening over a period of 14 days. Participants completed a telephone survey assessing their reactions to the messages after receiving the last message. Results: We successfully involved twelve participants with lung cancer screening experience and eleven lung cancer screening eligible participants without previous screening experience in the development of educational text messages about lung cancer screening. After one participant withdrew, 22 participants received text messages and completed the survey regarding the messages. Most participants (18 of 22) reported reading all 14 text messages, however most recommended sending fewer messages (median recommended number of messages = 10). Participants found the educational text messages informative. Only four participants reported the text messages triggered anxiety and two reported text messages disrupted their daily activities. Participants perceived the text messages would empower patients to discuss lung cancer screening with their providers. Conclusion: Participants generally supported the use of educational text messages about lung cancer screening to increase patients’ awareness and promote patient-provider discussion. Engaging patients in the development and evaluation of text messages elicited helpful feedback that will inform the content of the messages to be delivered via this lung cancer screening text messages intervention.