4.7 Article

Impact of computed tomography screening for lung cancer on participants in a randomized controlled trial (NELSON trial)

期刊

CANCER
卷 113, 期 2, 页码 396-404

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23590

关键词

lung neoplasms; mass screening; quality of life; spiral computed tomography

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. Computed tomography (CT) screening is an important new tool for the early detection of lung cancer. In the current study, the authors assessed the discomfort associated with CT scanning and the subsequent wait for results and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time. METHODS. A total of 351 participants in the Dutch-Belgian randomized controlled trial for lung cancer screening in high-risk subjects (the NELSON trial) who had an appointment for a baseline CT scan were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their experienced discomfort and HRQoL before, I day after, and approximately 6 months after the CT scan. HRQoL was measured as generic HRQoL (12-item Short Form [SF-12] and EuroQol questionnaire [EQ-5D]), generic anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [STAI-6]), and lung cancer-specific distress (Impact of Event Scale [IES]). Approximately 76.9% of the participants completed all 3 questionnaires. RESULTS. Approximately 87% to 99% of participants reported experiencing no discomfort related to the CT scan. The median SF-12, EQ-5D, STAI-6, and IES scores did not appear to change relevantly over time. Approximately 46.0% and 51.3%, respectively, of the participants reported discomfort in connection with having to wait for the results of the CT scan and dreading those results. These patients had relevantly higher STAI-6 and IES scores (P < .01) (unfavorable) at all 3 assessments. CONCLUSIONS. The current evaluation of the potential adverse effects of CT screening for lung cancer on HRQoL demonstrated no negative effects. However, waiting for the CT scan results was reported to be discomforting by approximately half of the participants. Minimizing the waiting time for the test results is therefore recommended.

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