Invasive Procedures Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: The harm associated with imaging abnormalities related to lung cancer screening (LCS) is not well documented, especially outside the clinical trial and academic setting. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the frequency of invasive procedures and complications associated with a community based LCS program, including procedures for false-positive and benign, but clinically important, incidental findings? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study of an LCS program at a nonuniversity teaching hospital from 2016 through 2019 to identify invasive procedures prompted by LCS results, including their indication and complications. RESULTS: Among 2,003 LCS participants, 58 patients (2.9%) received a diagnosis of lung cancer and 71 patients (3.5%) received a diagnosis of any malignancy. Invasive procedures were performed 160 times in 103 participants (5.1%), including 1.7% of those without malignancy. Eight invasive procedures (0.4% of participants), including four surgeries (12% of diagnostic lung resections), were performed for false-positive lung nodules. Only 1% of Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4A nodules that proved benign were subject to an invasive procedure. Among those without malignancy, an invasive procedure was performed in eight participants for extrapulmonary false-positive findings (0.4%) and in 19 participants (0.9%) to evaluate incidental findings considered benign but clinically important. Procedures for the latter indication resulted in treatment, change in management, or diagnosis in 79% of individuals. Invasive procedures in those without malignancy resulted in three complications (0.15%). Seventy nonsurgical procedures (6% complication rate) and 48 thoracic surgeries (4% major complication rate) were performed in those with malignancy. INTERPRETATION: The use of invasive procedures to resolve false-positive findings was uncommon in the clinical practice of a nonuniversity LCS program that adhered to a nodule management algorithm and used a multidisciplinary approach. Incidental findings considered benign but clinically important resulted in invasive procedure rates that were similar to those for false-positive findings and frequently had clinical value.

Use of the Interview in Resident Candidate Selection: A Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Although the resident candidate interview is costly and time-consuming for both applicants and programs, it is considered critically important for resident selection. Noncognitive attributes, including communication skills and professionalism, can be assessed by the personal interview. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a review of the literature on the residency interview to identify the interview characteristics used for resident selection and to ascertain to what extent the interview yields information that predicts future performance. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus using the following search terms: residency, internship, interview, selection, and performance. We extracted information on characteristics of the interview process, including type of interview format, measures taken to minimize bias by interviewers, and testing of other clinical/surgical skills. RESULTS: We identified 104 studies that pertained to the resident selection interview, with highly varied interview formats and assessment tools. A positive correlation was demonstrated between a medical school academic record and the interview, especially for unblinded interview formats. A total of 34 studies attempted to correlate interview score with performance in residency, with mixed results. We also identified a number of studies that included personality testing, clinical skills testing, or surgical skills testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified a wide variety of approaches to the selection interview and a range of factors that have been studied to assess its effectiveness. More research needs to be done not only to address and ascertain appropriate interview formats that predict positive performance in residency, but also to determine interview factors that can predict both residents' "success" and program attrition.