Willingness to participate in combination screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease in four European countries.
Cardiovascular diseases
Lung neoplasms
Mass screening
Patient preference
Pulmonary Disease (Chronic Obstructive)
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Dec 2023
07 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
12
05
2023
accepted:
22
10
2023
revised:
04
10
2023
medline:
7
12
2023
pubmed:
7
12
2023
entrez:
7
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Lung cancer screening (LCS), using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), can be more efficient by simultaneously screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), the Big-3 diseases. This study aimed to determine the willingness to participate in (combinations of) Big-3 screening in four European countries and the relative importance of amendable participation barriers. An online cross-sectional survey aimed at (former) smokers aged 50-75 years elicited the willingness of individuals to participate in Big-3 screening and used analytical hierarchy processing (AHP) to determine the importance of participation barriers. Respondents were from France (n = 391), Germany (n = 338), Italy (n = 399), and the Netherlands (n = 342), and consisted of 51.2% men. The willingness to participate in screening was marginally influenced by the diseases screened for (maximum difference of 3.1%, for Big-3 screening (73.4%) vs. lung cancer and COPD screening (70.3%)) and by country (maximum difference of 3.7%, between France (68.5%) and the Netherlands (72.3%)). The largest effect on willingness to participate was personal perceived risk of lung cancer. The most important barriers were the missed cases during screening (weight 0.19) and frequency of screening (weight 0.14), while diseases screened for (weight 0.11) ranked low. The difference in willingness to participate in LCS showed marginal increase with inclusion of more diseases and limited variation between countries. A marginal increase in participation might result in a marginal additional benefit of Big-3 screening. The amendable participation barriers are similar to previous studies, and the new criterion, diseases screened for, is relatively unimportant. Adding diseases to combination screening modestly improves participation, driven by personal perceived risk. These findings guide program design and campaigns for lung cancer and Big-3 screening. Benefits of Big-3 screening lie in long-term health and economic impact, not participation increase. • It is unknown whether or how combination screening might affect participation. • The addition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease to lung cancer screening resulted in a marginal increase in willingness to participate. • The primary determinant influencing individuals' engagement in such programs is their personal perceived risk of the disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38060003
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10474-w
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-10474-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 10-10400-98-008
Pays : Netherlands
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
pubmed: 21714641
de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA et al (2020) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 382:503–513. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911793
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793
pubmed: 31995683
Becker N, Motsch E, Trotter A et al (2019) Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-results from the randomized German LUSI trial. Int J Cancer 146:1503–1513
Pastorino U, Silva M, Sestini S et al (2019) Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. Ann Oncol 30:1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz117
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz117
pubmed: 30937431
pmcid: 6637372
United States Preventive Services Task Force (2021) U.S. Preventive services task force issues draft recommendation statement on screening for lung cancer. Washington, D.C. https://www.uspreventiveservicetaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/lung-cancerscreening#fullrecommendationstart . Accessed 12 May 2023
UK National Screening Committee (2022) UK NSC minutes June 2022. London. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-june-2022/uk-nsc-minutes-june-2022#targeted-lung-cancer-screening-in-people-aged-55-to-74-years-with-a-history-of-smoking-evidencesummary-and-interim-cost-effectiveness . Accessed 12 May 2023
European Commission (2022) Proposal for a council recommendation (CR) on strengthening prevention through early detection: a new approach on cancer screening replacing CR 2003/878/EC. Brussels. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-09/com_2022-474_act_en.pdf
van Meerbeeck JP, Franck C (2021) Lung cancer screening in Europe: where are we in 2021? Transl Lung Cancer Res 10:2407–2417. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-890
doi: 10.21037/tlcr-20-890
pubmed: 34164288
pmcid: 8182708
Kauczor H-U, Baird A-M, Blum TG et al (2020) ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening. Eur Respir J 55:1900506. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00506-2019
doi: 10.1183/13993003.00506-2019
pubmed: 32051182
Xia C, Rook M, Pelgrim GJ et al (2019) Early imaging biomarkers of lung cancer, COPD and coronary artery disease in the general population: rationale and design of the ImaLife (Imaging in Lifelines) Study. Eur J Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00519-0
doi: 10.1007/s10654-019-00519-0
pubmed: 31016436
pmcid: 7058676
Heuvelmans MA, Vonder M, Rook M et al (2019) Screening for early lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease ( the Big-3) using low-dose chest computed tomography current evidence and technical considerations. J Thorac Imaging 34:160–169. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000379
doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000379
pubmed: 30550403
Vliegenthart R (2023) Toward automated detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in CT lung cancer screening. Radiology 307. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.231350
Mulshine JL, Aldigé CR, Ambrose LF et al (2023) Emphysema detection in the course of lung cancer screening: optimizing a rare opportunity to impact population health. Ann Am Thorac Soc 20:499–503. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202207-631PS
doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202207-631PS
pubmed: 36490389
pmcid: 10112413
Henschke CI, Yip R, Boffetta P et al (2015) CT screening for lung cancer: importance of emphysema for never smokers and smokers. Lung Cancer 88:42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.01.014
doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.01.014
pubmed: 25698134
Cheong BYC, Wilson JM, Spann SJ, Pettigrew RI, Preventza OA, Muthupillai R (2021) Coronary artery calcium scoring: an evidence-based guide for primary care physicians. J Intern Med 289:309–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.13176
doi: 10.1111/joim.13176
pubmed: 33016506
Venkataraman P, Kawakami H, Huynh Q et al (2021) Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery calcium scoring in people with a family history of coronary disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 14:1206–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.11.008
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.11.008
pubmed: 33454262
Roberts ET, Horne A, Martin SS et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery calcium testing for coronary heart and cardiovascular disease risk prediction to guide statin allocation: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). PLoS One 10:e0116377–e0116377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116377
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116377
pubmed: 25786208
pmcid: 4364761
Nolte JE, Neumann T, Manne JM et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness analysis of coronary artery disease screening in HIV-infected men. Eur J Prev Cardiol 21:972–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487313483607
doi: 10.1177/2047487313483607
pubmed: 23539717
van Kempen BJH, Spronk S, Koller MT et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for coronary artery calcium in asymptomatic individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:1690–1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.05.056
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.05.056
pubmed: 21982314
Behr CM, Koffijberg H, Degeling K, Vliegenthart R, IJzerman MJ (2022) Can we increase efficiency of CT lung cancer screening by combining with CVD and COPD screening? Results of an early economic evaluation. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08422-7
Eurostat (2017) Breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-372337_QID_484C9C7D_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;UNIT,L,Z,0;SOURCE,L,Z,1;ICD10,L,Z,2;INDICATORS,C,Z,3;&zSelection=DS-372337SOURCE,PRG;DS-372337ICD10,C50;DS-372337INDICATORS,OB . Accessed 25 Oct 2022
Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Vliegenthart R, Groen H, IJzerman MJ, (2017) Public preferences for lung cancer screening policies. Value Health 20:961–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.001
pubmed: 28712626
See K, Manser R, Park ER et al (2020) The impact of perceived risk, screening eligibility and worry on preference for lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey. ERJ Open Res 6:158–2019. https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00158-2019
doi: 10.1183/23120541.00158-2019
Kok WH, Ban Yu-Lin A, Azhar Shah S, Abdul Hamid F (2019) Determining the perception of a lung cancer screening programme among high-risk patients in a tertiary referral centre, Kuala Lumpur. Proc Singapore Healthc 29:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2010105819891743
doi: 10.1177/2010105819891743
Couraud S, Morère JF, Viguier J et al (2018) Social and behavioral indicators of undergoing a screening test for lung cancer. Ann Oncol 29:viii739. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy424.060
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy424.060
Couraud S, Greillier L, Brignoli-Guibaudet L et al (2018) Current and former smokers: who wants to be screened? Clin Lung Cancer 19:493–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLLC.2018.07.001
doi: 10.1016/J.CLLC.2018.07.001
pubmed: 30107977
Wildstein KA, Faustini Y, Yip R, Henschke CI, Ostroff JS (2011) Longitudinal predictors of adherence to annual follow-up in a lung cancer screening programme. J Med Screen 18:154–159. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2011.010127
doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.010127
pubmed: 22045825
Montes U, Seijo LM, Campo A, Alcaide AB, Bastarrika G, Zulueta JJ (2007) Factors determining early adherence to a lung cancer screening protocol. Eur Respir J 30:532 LP – 537. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00143206
Hummel JM, Bridges JFP, IJzerman MJ (2014) Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial. Patient 7:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7
doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7
pubmed: 24623191
Saaty TL (1989) Group decision making and the AHP 59–67, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50244-6_4
Shah BA, Staschen J, Pham N, Johns A (2019) Communicating mammography results: by what method and how quickly do women want their screening mammogram results? J Am Coll Radiol 16:928–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.12.006
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.12.006
pubmed: 30773374
Qualtrics (2005) Qualtrics. Provo, Utah, USA. Version January 2022. Available at: https://www.qualtrics.com
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Ossadnik W, Schinke S, Kaspar RH (2016) Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: a comparative analysis. Group Decis Negot 25:421–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9448-4
doi: 10.1007/s10726-015-9448-4
Low A (2011) COPD awareness–or lack thereof. BMJ 343:d6287–d6287. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6287
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6287
Mathioudakis AG, Ananth S, Vestbo J (2021) Stigma: an unmet public health priority in COPD. Lancet Respir Med 9:955–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00316-7
doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00316-7
pubmed: 34197813
Eurostat (2019) Breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do . Accessed 25 Nov 2022
Lam ACL, Aggarwal R, Cheung S et al (2020) Predictors of participant nonadherence in lung cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lung Cancer 146:134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.013
doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.013
pubmed: 32535225
Sedani AE, Ford LA, James SA, Beebe LA (2021) Factors associated with low-dose CT lung cancer screening participation in a high burden state: results from the 2017–2018 BRFSS. J Cancer Policy 28:100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2021.100284
doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2021.100284
pubmed: 35559913
Liang D, Shi J, Li D, Wu S, Jin J, He Y (2022) Participation and yield of a lung cancer screening program in Hebei, China. Front Oncol 11:795528. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2021.795528/FULL
Kellen E, Gabriels S, Van Hal G, Goossens MC (2021) Lung cancer screening: intention to participate and acceptability among Belgian smokers. Eur J Cancer Prev 30:457–461. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000656
doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000656
pubmed: 33369949
Du Y, Sidorenkov G, Heuvelmans MA et al (2020) Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in heavy smokers: a microsimulation modelling study. Eur J Cancer 135:121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.05.004
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.05.004
pubmed: 32563896
Criss S, Cao P, Bastani M et al (2019) Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening in the United States: a comparative modeling study. Ann Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-0322
Goffin JR, Flanagan WM, Miller AB et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in Canada. JAMA Oncol 1:807–813. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2472
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2472
pubmed: 26226181
Evans WK, Flanagan WM, Miller AB et al (2016) Implementing low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Canada: implications of alternative at-risk populations, screening frequency, and duration. Curr Oncol 23:e179–e187. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.2988
doi: 10.3747/co.23.2988
pubmed: 27330355
pmcid: 4900838
Lew J-B, St John DJB, Xu X-M et al (2017) Long-term evaluation of benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia: a modelling study. Lancet Public Heal 2:e331–e340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30105-6
doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30105-6
Hummel JM, Steuten LG, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CJ, Mulder N, Ijzerman MJ (2013) Preferences for colorectal cancer screening techniques and intention to attend: a multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl Heal Econ Heal Policy 11:499–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z
doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0051-z