August 1, 2022

Lung Cancer Screening Entails More Than CT Scans (Podcast)

High-quality programs help ensure that screening – now considered standard of care – is done right

In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force expanded its eligibility for lung cancer screening to encompass adults aged 50 to 80 years old who have a 20-pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. The change is science-based, taking into consideration research such as the NELSON Study that showed reduced lung cancer mortality with low-dose CT screening.

Advertisement

Cleveland Clinic is a non-profit academic medical center. Advertising on our site helps support our mission. We do not endorse non-Cleveland Clinic products or services. Policy

“The bottom line is absolutely there’s mortality benefit from screening,” says Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, Director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program in Cleveland Clinic’s Respiratory Institute. “Lung cancer screening should now be considered standard of care.”

In a featured episode of Cleveland Clinic’s Respiratory Exchange podcast, Dr. Mazzone talks about lung cancer screening, including:

  • The difference between screening and diagnostic testing.
  • Potential harms of low-dose CT scan for screening.
  • Advice for launching a lung cancer screening program.
  • The importance of generating awareness and knowledge about screening among the provider community.
  • The future of lung cancer screening, including new screening algorithms and population management systems.

Click the podcast player above to listen to the episode now, or read on for a short edited excerpt. Check out more Respiratory Exchange episodes at my.clevelandclinic.org/podcasts/respiratory-exchange or wherever you get your podcasts.

Excerpt from the podcast

Podcast host Raed Dweik, MD, MBA: You’ve spent a lot of time and energy building our lung cancer screening program here. Can you share with our audience … what it takes to establish a lung cancer screening program?

Advertisement

Dr. Mazzone: I like the question because you use the word “program.” … Screening is not just a test here. It is a program. An what’s most important is that the programs are designed to provide really high-quality care. You’re screening the right individuals; you’re using proper imaging techniques. You’re talking to patients about the benefits and harms, letting them make informed decisions about whether to participate.

You have systems in place to manage the findings from the scan, whether it be the lung nodules we talked about or anything else that’s imaged on the chest. You have systems in place to help patients adhere to follow-up recommendations and to the annual scan.

In general, the design of the program only matters in that you have to meet each of those components of high-quality screening that I listed. And in general, the design can be divided into a centralized program or a decentralized program.

Centralized means a provider refers someone to the program, and the program does the rest. They talk to the patient, do the scan, interpret it and manage the findings. Decentralized would be the entire opposite. The primary provider talks to the patient, identifies the right patients, orders the test and then manages all the findings.

Advertisement

One system isn’t necessarily right or wrong; it depends on where you’re practicing and what your resources are. But what’s critical is that each of those components is present.

In general, in the literature, it’s been shown that a centralized program is more likely to screen the proper population; they have better adherence to follow-up recommendations and annual screening. And so we certainly favor centralized screening. But we also have to recognize that every place that has patients eligible doesn’t have the same resources to develop that.

In that situation, I’d suggest connecting or combining with larger health systems, regionally or nationally, to help make sure that you’re checking all the boxes – that you have all these components in place.

Related Articles

Physician with patient
February 21, 2024
Strategies for Improving Clinical Trial Equity

Cleveland Clinic Cancer Institute takes multi-faceted approach to increasing clinical trial access

How antibody drug conjugates work
February 13, 2024
Real-World Use of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan

Key learnings from DESTINY trials

CQD-4445459-rotz-650×450
February 7, 2024
Advances in Bone Marrow Transplant Have Improved Outcomes in Fanconi Anemia

Overall survival in patients treated since 2008 is nearly 20% higher than in earlier patients

CQD-CHP4445461-hanna-sickle-650×450
February 5, 2024
Haploidentical Bone Marrow Transplant Has Durable Engraftment in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease

Two-year event-free survival comparable to matched sibling donor myeloablative transplant

24-CNR-4545611-CQD-Podcast-967×544
February 1, 2024
Possibilities of CRISPR Technology (Podcast)

Gene editing technology offers promise for treating multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies, as well as solid tumors

CQD-CHP4445460-hanna-sickle-650×450
January 30, 2024
Gene Therapy Trials Show Positive Results in Sickle Cell Disease and Thalassemia

First-in-human trials of CRISPR-Cas12a gene editing demonstrate safety and meaningful event-free survival

photo of Elekta Esprit Gamma Knife machine
January 26, 2024
The Evolution of Gamma Knife Technology (Podcast)

Improvements enable targeting of brain tumors with single-session, fractionated or neoadjuvant approaches

Disparities in multiple myeloma
January 25, 2024
Major Study Identifies Global Disparities in Drug Toxicity for Multiple Myeloma Treatment

Study of 401,576 patients reveals differences in cancer burdens as well as overall survival

Ad