Skip to main content
main-content

Tipp

Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen

Erschienen in: Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 7-8/2018

25.01.2018 | original article

Do doctors understand the test characteristics of lung cancer screening?

verfasst von: Richard Schmidt, Marie Breyer, Robab Breyer-Kohansal, Matthias Urban, Georg-Christian Funk

Erschienen in: Wiener klinische Wochenschrift | Ausgabe 7-8/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
share
TEILEN

Summary

Background

Screening for lung cancer with a low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan is estimated to prevent 3 deaths per 1000 individuals at high risk; however, false positive results and radiation exposure are relevant harms and deserve careful consideration. Screening candidates can only make an autonomous decision if doctors correctly inform them of the pros and cons of the method; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate whether doctors understand the test characteristics of lung cancer screening.

Methods

In a randomized trial 556 doctors (members of the Austrian Respiratory Society) were invited to answer questions regarding lung cancer screening based on online case vignettes. Half of the participants were randomized to the group ‘solutions provided’ and received the correct solutions in advance. The group ‘solutions withheld’ had to rely on prior knowledge or estimates. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in the estimated number of deaths preventable by screening. Secondary endpoints were the between-group differences in the prevalence of lung cancer, prevalence of a positive screening results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and false negative rate. Estimations were also compared with current data from the literature.

Results

The response rate was 29% in both groups. The reduction in the number of deaths due to screening was overestimated six-fold (95% confidence interval CI: 4–8) compared with the actual data, and there was no effect of group allocation. Providing the correct solutions to doctors had no systematic effect on their answers.

Conclusion

Doctors poorly understand the test characteristics of lung cancer screening. Providing the correct solutions in advance did not improve the answers. Continuing education regarding lung cancer screening and the interpretation of test characteristics may be a simple remedy.

Clinical trial registration

Clinical trial registered with www.​clinicaltrials.​gov (NCT02542332).
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Horeweg N, Scholten ET, de Jong PA, et al. Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1342–50. CrossRefPubMed Horeweg N, Scholten ET, de Jong PA, et al. Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1342–50. CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409. CrossRefPubMed Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409. CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML, et al. Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: results of the first 3 years of follow-up after randomization. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(6):890–6. CrossRefPubMed Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML, et al. Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: results of the first 3 years of follow-up after randomization. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(6):890–6. CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Rasmussen JF, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST). Lung Cancer. 2015;87(1):65–72. CrossRefPubMed Rasmussen JF, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST). Lung Cancer. 2015;87(1):65–72. CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobson FL, Austin JH, Field JK, et al. Development of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for low-dose computed tomography scans to screen for lung cancer in North America: recommendations of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Task Force for Lung Cancer Screening and Surveillance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):25–32. CrossRefPubMed Jacobson FL, Austin JH, Field JK, et al. Development of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for low-dose computed tomography scans to screen for lung cancer in North America: recommendations of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Task Force for Lung Cancer Screening and Surveillance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):25–32. CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Jaklitsch MT, Jacobson FL, Austin JH, et al. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):33–8. CrossRefPubMed Jaklitsch MT, Jacobson FL, Austin JH, et al. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):33–8. CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Couraud S, Cortot AB, Greillier L, et al. From randomized trials to the clinic: is it time to implement individual lung-cancer screening in clinical practice? A multidisciplinary statement from French experts on behalf of the French intergroup (IFCT) and the groupe d’Oncologie de langue francaise (GOLF). Ann Oncol. 2013;24(3):586–97. CrossRefPubMed Couraud S, Cortot AB, Greillier L, et al. From randomized trials to the clinic: is it time to implement individual lung-cancer screening in clinical practice? A multidisciplinary statement from French experts on behalf of the French intergroup (IFCT) and the groupe d’Oncologie de langue francaise (GOLF). Ann Oncol. 2013;24(3):586–97. CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Prosch H, Studnicka M, Eisenhuber E, et al. Opinion of the Austrian Society of Radiology and the Austrian Society of Pneumology. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2013;125(11–12):339–45. CrossRefPubMed Prosch H, Studnicka M, Eisenhuber E, et al. Opinion of the Austrian Society of Radiology and the Austrian Society of Pneumology. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2013;125(11–12):339–45. CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Herth FJF, Hoffmann H, Heussel CP, Biederer J, Gröschel A. Lungenkrebs-Screening – Update 2014. Pneumologie. 2014;68(12):781–3. CrossRefPubMed Herth FJF, Hoffmann H, Heussel CP, Biederer J, Gröschel A. Lungenkrebs-Screening – Update 2014. Pneumologie. 2014;68(12):781–3. CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):340–9. CrossRefPubMed Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):340–9. CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Gigerenzer G. Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. New York: Vinking Press; 2007. Gigerenzer G. Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. New York: Vinking Press; 2007.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):538–40. CrossRefPubMed Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):538–40. CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010: Aktualisierte Leitlinie für Berichte randomisierter Studien im Parallelgruppen-Design. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2011;136(8):e20–e3. CrossRef Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010: Aktualisierte Leitlinie für Berichte randomisierter Studien im Parallelgruppen-Design. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2011;136(8):e20–e3. CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Dupont WD, Plummer WD Jr.. Power and sample size calculations. A review and computer program. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11(2):116–28. CrossRefPubMed Dupont WD, Plummer WD Jr.. Power and sample size calculations. A review and computer program. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11(2):116–28. CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [computer program]. 2013. Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [computer program]. 2013.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G. “There is nothing to worry about”: gynecologists’ counseling on mammography. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):251–6. CrossRefPubMed Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G. “There is nothing to worry about”: gynecologists’ counseling on mammography. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):251–6. CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Simmons J, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Wiener RS. Attitudes about low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a survey of American Thoracic Society Clinicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(4):483–6. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Simmons J, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Wiener RS. Attitudes about low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a survey of American Thoracic Society Clinicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(4):483–6. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990;1(1):46–43. Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990;1(1):46–43.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G. Mangelnde Statistikkompetenz bei Ärzten. In: Gigerenzer G, Gray JA, editors. Bessere Ärzte, bessere Patienten, bessere Medizin. Berlin: Medizinisch wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 2013. Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G. Mangelnde Statistikkompetenz bei Ärzten. In: Gigerenzer G, Gray JA, editors. Bessere Ärzte, bessere Patienten, bessere Medizin. Berlin: Medizinisch wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 2013.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Altman DG, Bland JM. Improving doctors’ understanding of statistics. J R Stat Soc. 1991;154(2):223–67. CrossRef Altman DG, Bland JM. Improving doctors’ understanding of statistics. J R Stat Soc. 1991;154(2):223–67. CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Chang D. Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2813–4. CrossRefPubMed Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Chang D. Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2813–4. CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Richter G. Autonomie und Paternalismus-zur Verantwortung des medizinischen Handelns. Ethik Med. 1992;4(1):27–36. Richter G. Autonomie und Paternalismus-zur Verantwortung des medizinischen Handelns. Ethik Med. 1992;4(1):27–36.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1216–20. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1216–20. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Huo J, Shen C, Volk RJ, Shih YT. Use of CT and chest radiography for lung cancer screening before and after publication of screening guidelines: intended and unintended uptake. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):439–41. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Huo J, Shen C, Volk RJ, Shih YT. Use of CT and chest radiography for lung cancer screening before and after publication of screening guidelines: intended and unintended uptake. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):439–41. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Fucito LM, Czabafy S, Hendricks PS, Kotsen C, Richardson D, Toll BA. Pairing smoking-cessation services with lung cancer screening: a clinical guideline from the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. Cancer. 2016;122(8):1150–9. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fucito LM, Czabafy S, Hendricks PS, Kotsen C, Richardson D, Toll BA. Pairing smoking-cessation services with lung cancer screening: a clinical guideline from the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. Cancer. 2016;122(8):1150–9. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1793–802. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1793–802. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Do doctors understand the test characteristics of lung cancer screening?
verfasst von
Richard Schmidt
Marie Breyer
Robab Breyer-Kohansal
Matthias Urban
Georg-Christian Funk
Publikationsdatum
25.01.2018
Verlag
Springer Vienna
Erschienen in
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift / Ausgabe 7-8/2018
Print ISSN: 0043-5325
Elektronische ISSN: 1613-7671
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-017-1305-9