Patient characteristics associated with adherence to pulmonary nodule guidelines.

BACKGROUND: While pulmonary nodule guidelines provide follow-up recommendations based on nodule size and malignancy risk, these are inconsistently followed in clinical practice. In this study, we sought to identify patient characteristics associated with guideline-concordant nodule follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with a pulmonary nodule between 2011 and 2014 at Boston Medical Center. Appropriate nodule follow-up evaluation was based upon the 2005 Fleischner Society Guidelines. In primary analysis, we compared patients with guideline-concordant follow-up to those with delayed or absent follow-up. In secondary analysis, we compared those with any follow-up to those without follow-up as well as the rate of guideline-concordant follow-up in patients seen by a pulmonologist. RESULTS: Of 3916 patients diagnosed with a pulmonary nodule, 1117 were included for analysis. Overall, 598 (53.5%) patients received guideline-concordant follow-up. Lower rates of guideline concordance were seen in patients of Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-1.00), while higher rates were seen for nodules 7-8 mm (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.35) and nodules >8 mm (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.20). Having a history of COPD (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.26-2.43), and being seen by a pulmonologist (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.51-2.58) were also associated with guideline concordance. Among patients seen by a pulmonologist, 62.2% received guideline-concordant follow-up. CONCLUSION: Overall rates of pulmonary nodule follow-up are low. Patient ethnicity, COPD history, nodule size and involvement of a pulmonologist may impact follow-up rates and are potential targets for implementation interventions to improve pulmonary nodule follow-up.

Assessment of anxiety and depression in patients with incidental pulmonary nodules and analysis of its related impact factors.

OBJECTIVES: To assess anxiety and depression in patients with incidental pulmonary nodules and analyze the related impact factors. METHODS: All patients were assessed by questionnaires for their anxiety and depression after incidentally found pulmonary nodules. Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HAD), generalized anxiety disorder scale-7 (GAD-7), and multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) were used to evaluate their anxiety and depression in order to understand the basic information and social support, and to analyze the related factors. RESULTS: The HAD scale was used in 201 patients with pulmonary nodules. Univariate analysis showed the frequency of visits and social support had significant effects on anxiety (χ2 = 9.604, 20.912, P < 0.05). Regression analysis showed that social support (OR = 4.042, 95% CI: 2.1617.558, P < 0.05) was an independent influencing factor of anxiety. Univariate analysis showed that marital status, exposure history and social support had significant effects on depression (χ2 = 10.626, 6.005, 3.984, P < 0.05). Regression analysis showed that marital status (OR = 0.375, 95% CI: 0.186-0.754, P < 0.05) and social support (OR = 2.206, 95% CI: 1.016-4.789, P < 0.05) were independent influencing factors of depression. The results of GAD-7 showed the incidence of anxiety in patients with pulmonary nodules was 59.3% (108/182). Univariate analysis showed that anxiety was correlated with a history of chronic disease, psychological disease and social support (χ2 = 9.949, 8.356, 11.872, P < 0.05). Further regression analysis showed that a previous history of psychological disease (OR = 5.088, 95% CI: 1.804-14.339) and social support (OR = 2.768, 95% CI: 1.505-5.094), were independent influencing factors of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study concluded that anxiety was affected by social support and previous psychological factors, while depression was affected by marital status and social support. Doctors should therefore strengthen communication with patients, and alleviate the negative emotions of patients as far as possible.

Lung cancer screening: does pulmonary nodule detection affect a range of smoking behaviours?

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20%. Screen-detected abnormalities may provide teachable moments for smoking cessation. This study assesses impact of pulmonary nodule detection on smoking behaviours within the first UK trial of a novel auto-antibody test, followed by chest x-ray and serial CT scanning for early detection of lung cancer (Early Cancer Detection Test-Lung Cancer Scotland Study). METHODS: Test-positive participants completed questionnaires on smoking behaviours at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Logistic regression compared outcomes between nodule (n = 95) and normal CT groups (n = 174) at 3 and 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the nodule and normal CT groups for any smoking behaviours and odds ratios comparing the nodule and normal CT groups did not vary significantly between 3 and 6 months. There was some evidence the nodule group were more likely to report significant others wanted them to stop smoking than the normal CT group (OR across 3- and 6-month time points: 3.04, 95% CI: 0.95, 9.73; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Pulmonary nodule detection during lung cancer screening has little impact on smoking behaviours. Further work should explore whether lung cancer screening can impact on perceived social pressure and promote smoking cessation.

Pulmonary Nodules: A Small Problem for Many, Severe Distress for Some, and How to Communicate About It.

Every year, millions of patients are diagnosed with pulmonary nodules, and as increasing numbers of people undergo lung cancer screening, even more patients will be found to have a nodule. The vast majority of patients cannot benefit from the detection of a pulmonary nodule because most are benign. Accordingly, it is important to develop strategies to minimize harm, in particular the distress of a "near-cancer" diagnosis. In other settings, communication strategies are critical mediators of patient-centered outcomes for those with cancer and those at-risk of cancer. We conducted multiple studies to characterize the experience of patients with the diagnosis and evaluation of incidental pulmonary nodules, measure patient-centered outcomes for patients with pulmonary nodules, and determine the association of patient-clinician communication practices with those outcomes. We learned that a substantial proportion of patients experience distress and inadequate communication about pulmonary nodules and their evaluation, and yet many clinicians are unaware of the degree to which some patients are affected by the finding of a pulmonary nodule. The present review provides a comprehensive summary of our results and offers suggestions for how clinicians can best provide high-quality communication for their patients.

Patients' Knowledge, Beliefs, and Distress Associated with Detection and Evaluation of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules for Cancer: Results from a Multicenter Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary nodules are detected in more than 1 million Americans each year. Prior qualitative work suggests that the detection of incidental pulmonary nodules can be burdensome for patients, but whether these findings generalize to a broader sample of patients is unknown. We categorized patients' knowledge, beliefs, and distress associated with detection and evaluation of a pulmonary nodule, as well as their impressions of clinician communication. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to adults with an incidental pulmonary nodule who were recruited from a rural medical center, an urban safety net hospital, and a Veterans Affairs hospital. RESULTS: Of the 490 individuals mailed surveys, 244 (50%) responded. Median nodule size was 7 mm, mean patient age was 67 years, 29% of respondents were female, and 86% were white. A quarter of the respondents (26%) reported clinically significant distress related to their nodule, our primary outcome, as measured by the Impact of Event Scale. Patients reported multiple concerns, including uncertainty about the nodule's cause (78%), the possibility of cancer (73%), and the possible need for surgery (64%). Only 25% of patients accurately estimated their lung cancer risk (within 15% of their actual risk); overall, there was no correlation between perceived and actual risk (r = -0.007, p = 0.93). The 23% of patients who did receive information on cancer risk from their provider were more likely to find this information reassuring (16%) than scary (7%). CONCLUSION: A quarter of patients with incidental pulmonary nodules experienced clinically significant distress. Knowledge about cancer risk and evaluation was poor. Clinician communication may help bridge knowledge gaps and alleviate distress in some patients.

Primary Care Providers and a System Problem: A Qualitative Study of Clinicians Caring for Patients With Incidental Pulmonary Nodules.

BACKGROUND: As lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scanning is implemented, an increasing number of people will be diagnosed with pulmonary nodules. Primary care clinicians care for the vast majority of these patients, but their experiences with communication and managing distress in this population are not well understood. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews of 15 primary care providers (PCPs) at two academic medical centers who care for patients with pulmonary nodules. We used qualitative description analysis, focusing on clinicians' information exchange and other communication behaviors. RESULTS: Most PCPs believed they had inadequate information to counsel patients regarding lung nodules, although this information is desired. PCPs were concerned patients could "fall through the cracks" but did not have access to a reliable system to ensure follow-up adherence. They were limited by time, knowledge, and resources in providing the preferred level of care. Most PCPs did not discuss the specific risk a nodule was lung cancer, in part because they did not have ready access to this information. PCPs believed most patients did not have substantial distress as a result of nodule detection. Most PCPs did not include patients when making decisions about the follow-up plan. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs often lack systemic resources to optimize patient-centered approaches when discussing incidental pulmonary nodules with patients. With the advent of lung cancer screening, pulmonologists can assist primary care colleagues by providing accurate information to counsel patients and assisting in managing conversations about the risk of cancer. Pulmonologists should support efforts to implement reliable systems to ensure adherence to follow-up.

Pulmonologists' Reported Use of Guidelines and Shared Decision-making in Evaluation of Pulmonary Nodules: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Selecting a strategy (surveillance, biopsy, resection) for pulmonary nodule evaluation can be complex given the absence of high-quality data comparing strategies and the important tradeoffs among strategies. Guidelines recommend a three-step approach: (1) assess the likelihood of malignancy, (2) evaluate whether the patient is a candidate for invasive intervention, and (3) elicit the patient's preferences and engage in shared decision-making. We sought to characterize how pulmonologists select a pulmonary nodule evaluation strategy and the extent to which they report following the guideline-recommended approach. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 14 pulmonologists who manage patients with pulmonary nodules at four clinical sites. Transcripts of audiorecorded interviews were analyzed using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Pulmonologists reported consistently performing steps 1 and 2 but described diverse approaches to step 3 that ranged from always engaging the patient in decision-making to never doing so. Many described incorporating patients' preferences only in particular circumstances, such as when the patient appeared particularly anxious or was aggressive in questioning management options. Indeed, other factors, including convenience, physician preferences, physician anxiety, malpractice concerns, and physician experience, appeared to drive decision-making as much as, if not more than, patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Although pulmonologists appear to routinely personalize pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies based on the individual patient's risk-benefit tradeoffs, they may not consistently take patient preferences into account during the decision-making process. In the absence of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal methods of pulmonary nodule evaluation, physicians should strive to ensure that management decisions are consistent with patients' values.

Distress and patient-centered communication among veterans with incidental (not screen-detected) pulmonary nodules. A cohort study.

RATIONALE: Incidental pulmonary nodule detection is postulated to cause distress, but the frequency and magnitude of that distress have not been reported. The quality of patient-clinician communication and the perceived risk of lung cancer may influence distress Objectives: To evaluate the association of communication processes with distress and the perceived risk of lung cancer using validated instruments. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with incidentally detected nodules who received care at one Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. We measured distress with the Impact of Event Scale and patient-centered communication with the Consultation Care Measure, both validated instruments. Risk of lung cancer was self-reported by participants. We used multivariable adjusted logistic regression to measure the association of communication quality with distress. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 122 Veterans with incidental nodules, 23%, 12%, and 4% reported experiencing mild, moderate, and severe distress, respectively, at the time they were informed of the pulmonary nodule. Participant-reported risk of lung cancer was not associated with distress. In the adjusted model, high-quality communication was associated with decreased distress (odds ratio [OR] = 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-1.00, P = 0.05). Among participants who reported a risk of malignancy of 30% or less, high-quality communication was associated with decreased distress (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02-0.92, P = 0.04), but was not associated with distress for those who reported a risk greater than 30% (OR = 0.12 (95% CI = 0.00-3.97, P = 0.24), although the P value for interaction was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans with incidental pulmonary nodules frequently reported inadequate information exchange regarding their nodule. Many patients experience distress after they are informed that they have a pulmonary nodule, and high-quality patient-clinician communication is associated with decreased distress. Communication strategies that only target improved knowledge of the risk of malignancy may not be sufficient to reduce the distress associated with nodule detection.

'The thing is not knowing': patients' perspectives on surveillance of an indeterminate pulmonary nodule.

BACKGROUND: The hundreds of thousands of patients found to have a potentially malignant pulmonary nodule each year are faced with tremendous uncertainty regarding what the nodule is and how it should be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' responses to the detection and evaluation of a pulmonary nodule. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on four focus-group discussions. We performed inductive analysis using principles of grounded theory to identify themes relating to responses to the nodule and strategies to manage uncertainty. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two patients from two medical centres who were undergoing surveillance for an indeterminate pulmonary nodule. RESULTS: Patient responses to an indeterminate pulmonary nodule were varied and evolved over time. Although almost all patients reported an initial fear about cancer, subsequent depictions of the nodule diverged into four types defined on two dimensions: cognitive ('it's cancer' vs. 'I don't know what it is' vs. 'it's nothing serious') and emotional (anxiety vs. equanimity). Most eventually accepted that the nodule was unlikely to be malignant; however, some remained anxious, convinced the nodule could turn into cancer at any time and should be aggressively monitored for life. Patients used results of surveillance tests as well as their own strategies (e.g. vigilance for symptoms, information-seeking, contemplating and controlling modifiable risk factors, avoidance, faith) to manage uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance for a pulmonary nodule can weigh heavily on some patients for months or years. Our findings may help clinicians prepare patients with a newly detected pulmonary nodule for the burden of the prolonged uncertainty of surveillance.

What the heck is a "nodule"? A qualitative study of veterans with pulmonary nodules.

RATIONALE: Every year, hundreds of thousands of patients are diagnosed with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules, and if lung cancer screening is widely implemented, thousands more will be identified. The psychosocial outcomes associated with incidental nodule detection in general practice settings are virtually unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of patients with incidentally diagnosed pulmonary nodules. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews of 19 veterans with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. We used qualitative description for the analysis, focusing on patients' information exchange and other communication behaviors with their clinicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The patients were cared for by primary care clinicians and had small nodules that were unlikely to be malignant. Patients did not understand the term "nodule" although they knew it was related to cancer. They also did not understand the follow-up plan and most were unable to obtain better information from their clinician or other sources. Most patients experienced nodule-related distress that was usually mild, although sometimes severe. This distress was sometimes mitigated by patients' confidence in their clinician. Most patients wanted more and better information about their nodule. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans from one hospital have little understanding of what nodules are, the likelihood of malignancy, and the follow-up plan. Their reaction to this knowledge deficit is variable and is likely related to preferred communication behaviors with their clinician. Evaluating communication in other settings is important to confirm these findings and to refine mechanisms to improve patient-centered care for those with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules.

Quality of life and healthcare use in a randomized controlled lung cancer screening study.

RATIONALE: Understanding the quality of life of lung cancer screening program participants, and the impact of program participation on quality of life and healthcare use, will help in the assessment of the value of screening. OBJECTIVES: Determine the quality of life of participants in a lung cancer screening study and assess the effect of an abnormal screening finding on quality of life and healthcare use. METHODS: Quality-of-life measures and data on the use of healthcare services were collected prospectively during a randomized controlled lung cancer screening trial using chest radiography with computer-aided detection. Comparisons of baseline measures were made with U.S. population norms for the EuroQol 5-Dimension index. The impact of receiving a message of the presence of a lung nodule was assessed for all measures. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,424 subjects participated. Twenty-five actionable nodules were reported. Baseline EuroQol 5-Dimension index scores were higher than U.S. population norms (P < 0.0001). The EuroQol 5-Dimension index score and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire symptom score showed a significant change toward poorer quality of life after notification of the presence of a lung nodule (0.940 vs. 0.877, P = 0.022, and 25.7 vs. 34.0, P = 0.005, respectively). Chest imaging within 6 months of the screening examination occurred more frequently in those notified of a lung nodule (25.5 vs. 9.3%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Those who choose to enter a lung cancer screening program have a high baseline quality of life. The report of an abnormal screening finding can lower the quality of life and lead to increased chest imaging. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01663155).

What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules.

BACKGROUND: More than 150,000 Americans each year are found to have a pulmonary nodule. Even more will be affected following the publication of the National Lung Screening Trial. Patient-doctor communication about pulmonary nodules can be challenging. Although most nodules are benign, it may take 2 to 3 years to rule out cancer. We sought to characterize patients' perceptions of communication with their providers about pulmonary nodules. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups at two sites with 22 adults with an indeterminate pulmonary nodule. Transcripts were analyzed using principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Patients described conversations with 53 different providers about the pulmonary nodule. Almost all patients immediately assumed that they had cancer when first told about the nodule. Some whose providers did not discuss the actual cancer risk or explain the evaluation plan experienced confusion and distress that sometimes lasted for months. Patients were frustrated when their providers did not address their concerns about cancer or potential adverse effects of surveillance (eg, prolonged uncertainty, radiation exposure), which in some cases led to poor adherence to evaluation plans. Patients found it helpful when physicians used lay terms, showed the CT image, and quantified cancer risk. By contrast, patients resented medical jargon and dismissive language. CONCLUSIONS: Patients commonly assume that a pulmonary nodule means cancer. What providers tell (or do not tell) patients about their cancer risk and the evaluation plan can strongly influence patients' perceptions of the nodule and related distress. We describe simple communication strategies that may help patients to come to terms with an indeterminate pulmonary nodule.

Solitary pulmonary nodules: consequences for patient quality of life.

PURPOSE: The aim was to describe levels of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and its determinants in patients with solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) and to compare them with the French general population. METHODS: A prospective multicentre study of patients diagnosed with SPN, in northeastern regions of France, was carried out between 2002 and 2005. Six months after the end of diagnostic procedure, patients completed the SF-36 self-reported questionnaire (where 100 indicates high HRQoL). For a comparison, HRQoL data from a sample of the French general population collected by INSEE in 2002-2003 (n = 17,750). RESULTS: Among 171 participating patients, 39 had malignant nodules and had lesser mean scores on physical and emotional role, vitality and social functioning (-6 to -18 points) than those with nonmalignant nodule. Compared to the French general population, patients with SPN had lower scores, by 11-30 points, in all dimensions (P < 0.001). Older age and smoking history were associated with low HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Six months after receiving a diagnosis of SPNs, whether malignant, patients have worse HRQoL compared to the French general population. It indicates areas where physicians can help patients coping with their disease.

Short-term health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON).

BACKGROUND: In lung cancer CT screening, participants often have an indeterminate screening result at baseline requiring a follow-up CT. In subjects with either an indeterminate or a negative result after screening, we investigated whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) changed over time and differed between groups in the short term. METHODS: A total of 733 participants in the NELSON trial received four questionnaires: T0, before randomisation; T1, 1 week before the baseline screening; T2, 1 day after the screening; and T3, 2 months after the screening results but before the 3-month follow-up CT. HRQoL was measured as generic HRQoL (the 12-item Short Form, SF-12; the EuroQol questionnaire, EQ-5D), anxiety (the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), and lung-cancer-specific distress (the Impact of Event Scale, IES). For analyses, repeated-measures analysis of variance was used, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Response to each questionnaire was 88% or higher. Scores on SF-12, EQ-5D, and STAI-6 showed no clinically relevant changes over time. At T3, IES scores that were clinically relevant increased after an indeterminate result, whereas these scores showed a significant decrease after a negative result. At T3, differences in IES scores between the two baseline result groups were both significant and clinically relevant (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: This longitudinal study among participants of a lung cancer screening programme showed that in the short term recipients of an indeterminate result experienced increased lung-cancer-specific distress, whereas the HRQoL changes after a negative baseline screening result may be interpreted as a relief.