Use of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide to Guide the Treatment of Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: The fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) test is a point-of-care test that is used in the assessment of asthma. Objective: To provide evidence-based clinical guidance on whether FENO testing is indicated to optimize asthma treatment in patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary panel of experts was convened to form a consensus document regarding a single question relevant to the use of FENO. The question was selected from three potential questions based on the greatest perceived impact on clinical practice and the unmet need for evidence-based answers related to this question. The panel performed systematic reviews of published randomized controlled trials between 2004 and 2019 and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations. All panel members evaluated and approved the recommendations. Main Results: After considering the overall low quality of the evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation for FENO-based care. In patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered, we suggest that FENO is beneficial and should be used in addition to usual care. This judgment is based on a balance of effects that probably favors the intervention; the moderate costs and availability of resources, which probably favors the intervention; and the perceived acceptability and feasibility of the intervention in daily practice. Conclusions: Clinicians should consider this recommendation to measure FENO in patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered based on current best available evidence.

Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: An Official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) represent over 190 species and subspecies, some of which can produce disease in humans of all ages and can affect both pulmonary and extrapulmonary sites. This guideline focuses on pulmonary disease in adults (without cystic fibrosis or human immunodeficiency virus infection) caused by the most common NTM pathogens such as Mycobacterium avium complex, Mycobacterium kansasii, and Mycobacterium xenopi among the slowly growing NTM and Mycobacterium abscessus among the rapidly growing NTM. A panel of experts was carefully selected by leading international respiratory medicine and infectious diseases societies (ATS, ERS, ESCMID, IDSA) and included specialists in pulmonary medicine, infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, laboratory medicine, and patient advocacy. Systematic reviews were conducted around each of 22 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and the recommendations were formulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Thirty-one evidence-based recommendations about treatment of NTM pulmonary disease are provided. This guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients with NTM pulmonary disease, including specialists in infectious diseases and pulmonary diseases.

Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: An Official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) represent over 190 species and subspecies, some of which can produce disease in humans of all ages and can affect both pulmonary and extrapulmonary sites. This guideline focuses on pulmonary disease in adults (without cystic fibrosis or human immunodeficiency virus infection) caused by the most common NTM pathogens such as Mycobacterium avium complex, Mycobacterium kansasii, and Mycobacterium xenopi among the slowly growing NTM and Mycobacterium abscessus among the rapidly growing NTM. A panel of experts was carefully selected by leading international respiratory medicine and infectious diseases societies (ATS, ERS, ESCMID, IDSA) and included specialists in pulmonary medicine, infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, laboratory medicine, and patient advocacy. Systematic reviews were conducted around each of 22 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and the recommendations were formulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Thirty-one evidence-based recommendations about treatment of NTM pulmonary disease are provided. This guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients with NTM pulmonary disease, including specialists in infectious diseases and pulmonary diseases.

Treatment of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease: an official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA clinical practice guideline.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) represent over 190 species and subspecies, some of which can produce disease in humans of all ages and can affect both pulmonary and extrapulmonary sites. This guideline focuses on pulmonary disease in adults (without cystic fibrosis or human immunodeficiency virus infection) caused by the most common NTM pathogens such as Mycobacterium avium complex, Mycobacterium kansasii, and Mycobacterium xenopi among the slowly growing NTM and Mycobacterium abscessus among the rapidly growing NTM. A panel of experts was carefully selected by leading international respiratory medicine and infectious diseases societies (ATS, ERS, ESCMID, IDSA) and included specialists in pulmonary medicine, infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, laboratory medicine, and patient advocacy. Systematic reviews were conducted around each of 22 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and the recommendations were formulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Thirty-one evidence-based recommendations about treatment of NTM pulmonary disease are provided. This guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients with NTM pulmonary disease, including specialists in infectious diseases and pulmonary diseases.

Combining smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening: A systematic review.

Providing smoking cessation treatment with annual low dose CT (LDCT) screening offers an opportunity to reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the optimal approach for delivering cessation interventions in the LDCT screening context is unknown. We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a control group testing a smoking cessation intervention among adults undergoing LDCT screening through May 1, 2018 using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers independently reviewed each study to assess eligibility and extracted information using pre-specified protocols for included studies. Given significant differences in the interventions in each study, meta-analyses for the included studies could not be performed. Of 2513 identified studies, 9 met inclusion criteria. Five of the included studies were randomized controlled trials while 4 were observational studies with a control group. Studies were of varying quality, but overall were of poor to fair quality with significant potential for bias and limited generalizability. Based on the available studies, there was insufficient data to suggest a particular approach to smoking cessation counseling in the LDCT screening setting. While no studies compared combined pharmacotherapy and counseling to counseling alone or compared the various pharmacologic agents, we identified several studies underway investigating new approaches during LDCT screening. The optimal strategy for smoking cessation in patients undergoing LDCT screening remains unclear. Future studies should focus on evaluating effectiveness and implementation of combined counseling and pharmacotherapy to optimize smoking cessation during LDCT screening.

Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Arterial Thrombosis and Thromboembolism in COVID-19: An American College of Chest Physicians Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Evidence increasingly shows that the risk of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Several organizations have released guidelines for the management of COVID-19-related coagulopathy and prevention of VTE. However, an urgent need exists for practical guidance on the management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in this setting. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current available evidence informing the prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that address urgent clinical questions regarding prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Using MEDLINE via PubMed, a literature search was conducted and references were screened for inclusion. Data from included studies were summarized and reviewed by the panel. Consensus for the direction and strength of recommendations was achieved using a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The review and analysis of the literature based on 11 PICO questions resulted in 11 recommendations. Overall, a low quality of evidence specific to the population with COVID-19 was found. Consequently, many of the recommendations were based on indirect evidence and prior guidelines in similar populations without COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: The existing evidence and panel consensus do not suggest a major departure from the management of arterial thrombosis according to recommendations predating the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on the optimal strategies for prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 are sparse. More high-quality evidence is needed to inform management strategies in these patients.

Effect of Race and Ethnicity on Pulmonary Function Testing Interpretation: An American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) Evidence Review and Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Calls have been made to discontinue the routine use of race and ethnicity in medicine. Specific to respiratory medicine, the use of race- and ethnicity-specific reference equations for the interpretation of pulmonary function test (PFT) results has been questioned. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Three key questions were addressed: (1) What is the current evidence supporting the use of race- and ethnicity-specific reference equations for the interpretation of PFTs? (2) What are the potential clinical implications of the use or nonuse of race and ethnicity in interpreting PFT results? and (3) What research gaps and questions must be addressed and answered to understand better the effect of race and ethnicity on PFT results interpretation and potential clinical and occupational health implications? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A joint multisociety (American College of Chest Physicians, American Association for Respiratory Care, American Thoracic Society, and Canadian Thoracic Society) expert panel was formed to undertake a comprehensive evidence review and to develop a statement with recommendations to address the research questions. RESULTS: Several assumptions and gaps, both in the published literature and in our evolving understanding of lung health, were identified. It seems that many past perceptions and practices regarding the effect of race and ethnicity on PFT results interpretation are based on limited scientific evidence and measures that lack reliability. INTERPRETATION: A need exists for more and better research that will inform our field about these many uncertainties and will serve as a foundation for future recommendations in this area. The identified shortcomings should not be discounted or dismissed because they may enable flawed conclusions, unintended consequences, or both. Addressing the identified research gaps and needs would allow a better-a more informed-understanding of the effects of race and ethnicity on PFT results interpretation.

Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: A Brief Update to the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often exhibit markers of a hypercoagulable state and have an increased incidence of VTE. In response, CHEST issued rapid clinical guidance regarding prevention of VTE. Over the past 18 months the quality of the evidence has improved. We thus sought to incorporate this evidence and update our recommendations as necessary. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This update focuses on the optimal approach to thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. The original questions were used to guide the search, using MEDLINE via PubMed. Eight randomized controlled trials and one observational study were included. Meta-analysis, using a random effects model, was performed. The panel created summaries using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework. Updated guidance statements were drafted, and a modified Delphi approach was used to obtain consensus. RESULTS: We provide separate guidance statements for VTE prevention for hospitalized patients with acute (moderate) illness and critically ill patients in the ICU. However, we divided each original question and resulting recommendation into two questions: standard prophylaxis vs therapeutic (or escalated dose) prophylaxis and standard prophylaxis vs intermediate dose prophylaxis. This led to a change in one recommendation, and an upgrading of three additional recommendations based upon higher quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in care for patients with COVID-19 have improved overall outcomes. Despite this, rates of VTE in these patients remain elevated. Critically ill patients should receive standard thromboprophylaxis for VTE, and moderately ill patients with a low bleeding risk might benefit from therapeutic heparin. We see no role for intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis in either setting.

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.

"I'm Putting My Trust in Their Hands": A Qualitative Study of Patients' Views on Clinician Initial Communication About Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose CT imaging is recommended for people at high risk of dying of lung cancer. Communication strategies for clinicians have been recommended, but their influence on patient-centered outcomes is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do patients experience communication and decision-making with clinicians when offered LCS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed semistructured interviews with 51 patients from three institutions with established LCS programs. We focused on communication domains such as information exchange, patient as person, and shared decision-making. Using conventional content analysis, we report on patients' assessment of information, reasons for (dis)satisfaction, distress, and role in the decision-making process. RESULTS: Participants recalled few specific harms or benefits of screening, but uniformly reported satisfaction with the amount of information provided. All participants reported that clinicians did not explicitly ask about their values and preferences and about one-half reported some distress in anticipation of screening results. Almost all participants were satisfied with their role in the decision-making process. Despite participants' reporting that they did not experience all aspect of shared decision-making as defined, they reported high levels of trust in clinicians, which may relate to their largely positive reactions to the LCS decision interaction through the patient as person domain of communication. INTERPRETATION: Although decision-making for lung cancer screening as currently practiced may not meet all criteria of high-quality communication, patients in our sample are satisfied with the process, and report high trust in clinicians. Patients may place greater importance on interpersonal aspects of communication rather than information exchange.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report.

Background: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. Results: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Conclusion: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.© 2020 RSNA; The American College of Chest Physicians, published by Elsevier Inc; and The American College of Radiology, published by Elsevier Inc.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. RESULTS: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. RESULTS: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Patient-Level Trajectories and Outcomes After Low-Dose CT Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is an essential element of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. Understanding patient-level outcomes from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is critical to effectively communicate risks and benefits of screening to patients. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data collected in the NLST. We determined outcomes of each LDCT scan performed in the NLST (downstream evaluation, complications, lung cancer diagnoses), and compared outcomes at the test level with outcomes calculated at the patient level for those randomized to LDCT screening. To assess the impact of COPD on patient outcomes, we compared outcomes among patients with and without COPD. RESULTS: Of 75,138 LDCT scans, 14.2% led to a diagnostic study and 1.5% to an invasive procedure, with 0.3% of LDCT scans resulting in a procedure-related complication and 0.1% in a serious complication. Among 24,453 patients who underwent LDCT screening, 30.5% underwent a diagnostic study and 4.2% an invasive procedure, with 0.9% of screened patients experiencing a procedure-related complication and 0.3% a serious complication. Patients with COPD (defined by self-report) were more likely to need a diagnostic study (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.29; P < .01) and an invasive procedure (aOR, 1.41; P < .01) and more likely to experience a complication (aOR, 1.83; P < .01) and a serious complication (aOR, 1.78; P = .01). Patients with COPD also were more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer (aOR, 1.43; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: We provide important patient-level data from the NLST that can be used to guide shared decision-making. The risk-to-benefit ratio of screening may vary significantly in some patients, such as those with COPD, in whom both risks and benefits of screening may be increased.

A Brief Report of Smoking Behaviors in Patients with Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: Associations with Communication and Risk Perception.

INTRODUCTION: Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPNs) are commonly found on routine chest imaging. Little is known about smoking behaviors among patients with IPNs or characteristics of patient-clinician communication that may contribute to these behaviors. We assessed the association of patient characteristics and communication quality with smoking behaviors and stage of change for tobacco cessation among patients with IPNs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, repeated-measures, cohort study of current smokers and past-year quitters with IPNs treated within the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System. Eligible patients had newly reported, incidental nodules <3 cm planned for non-urgent computed tomography (CT) follow-up. Our primary outcomes were changes in amount smoked and stage of change for tobacco cessation throughout the follow-up period. We used multivariable-adjusted generalized estimating equations for analyses. RESULTS: We identified 37 current smokers and 9 recent quitters. By the final visit, 8 of 36 (22%) baseline smokers had quit and 2 of 7 (29%) recent quitters had resumed smoking. Of 40 respondents, 23 (58%) reported receiving any tobacco treatment (recommendation to quit, medication, and/or behavioral treatment) at least once during follow-up. We found no significant associations of high-quality communication, patient distress, self-perceived risk of lung cancer, and self-reported clinician-recommended smoking cessation interventions with decrease in amount smoked or positive stage of change. CONCLUSIONS: Many smokers and recent quitters with IPNs quit during follow-up, though nearly half reported no quit support. We found no association between communication quality or quit support and decreased smoking. The intensity of tobacco treatment offered may have been insufficient to affect behavior.

Clinical Equipoise and Shared Decision-making in Pulmonary Nodule Management. A Survey of American Thoracic Society Clinicians.

RATIONALE: Guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation suggest a variety of strategies, reflecting the lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating the superiority of any one approach. It is unclear whether clinicians agree that multiple management options are appropriate at different levels of risk and whether this impacts their decision-making approaches with patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess clinicians' perceptions of the appropriateness of various diagnostic strategies, approach to decision-making, and perceived clinical equipoise in pulmonary nodule evaluation. METHODS: We developed and administered a web-based survey in March and April, 2014 to clinician members of the American Thoracic Society. The primary outcome was perceived appropriateness of pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies in three clinical vignettes with different malignancy risk. We compared responses to guideline recommendations and analyzed clinician characteristics associated with a reported shared decision-making approach. We also assessed clinicians' likelihood to enroll patients in hypothetical randomized trials comparing nodule evaluation strategies. RESULTS: Of 5,872 American Thoracic Society members e-mailed, 1,444 opened the e-mail and 428 eligible clinicians participated in the survey (response rate, 30.0% among those who opened the invitation; 7% overall). The mean number of options considered appropriate increased with pretest probability of cancer, ranging from 1.8 (SD, 1.2) for the low-risk case to 3.5 (1.1) for the high-risk case (P < 0.0001). As recommended by guidelines, the proportion that deemed surgical resection as an appropriate option also increased with cancer risk (P < 0.0001). One-half of clinicians (50.4%) reported engaging in shared decision-making with patients for pulmonary nodule management; this was more commonly reported by clinicians with more years of experience (P = 0.01) and those who reported greater comfort in managing pulmonary nodules (P = 0.005). Although one-half (49.9%) deemed the evidence for pulmonary nodule evaluation to be strong, most clinicians were willing to enroll patients in randomized trials to compare nodule management strategies in all risk categories (low risk, 87.6%; moderate risk, 89.7%; high risk, 63.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with guideline recommendations, clinicians embrace multiple options for pulmonary nodule evaluation and many are open to shared decision-making. Clinicians support the need for randomized clinical trials to strengthen the evidence for nodule evaluation, which will further improve decision-making.