Patient Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors.

Importance: Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography is associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality, but uptake is low in the US; understanding how patients make decisions to engage with lung cancer screening is critical for increasing uptake. Prior research has focused on individual-level psychosocial factors, but environmental factors (eg, historical contexts that include experiencing racism) and modifying factors-those that can be changed to make it easier or harder to undergo screening-also likely affect screening decisions. Objective: To investigate environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influencing lung cancer screening decision-making and develop a conceptual framework depicting relationships between these factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimethod qualitative study was conducted from December 2021 to June 2022 using virtual semistructured interviews and 4 focus groups (3-4 participants per group). All participants met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening (ie, age 50-80 years, at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years). Screening-eligible US participants were recruited using an online panel. Main Outcomes and Measures: Key factors influencing screening decisions (eg, knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators) were the main outcome. A theory-informed, iterative inductive-deductive approach was applied to analyze data and develop a conceptual framework summarizing results. Results: Among 34 total participants (interviews, 20 [59%]; focus groups, 14 [41%]), mean (SD) age was 59.1 (4.8) years and 20 (59%) identified as female. Half had a household income below $20 000 (17 [50%]). Participants emphasized historical and present-day racism as critical factors contributing to mistrust of health care practitioners and avoidance of medical procedures like screening. Participants reported that other factors, such as public transportation availability, also influenced decisions. Additionally, participants described psychosocial processes involved in decisions, such as perceived screening benefits, lung cancer risk appraisal, and fear of a cancer diagnosis or harmful encounters with practitioners. In addition, participants identified modifying factors (eg, insurance coverage) that could make receiving screening easier or harder. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of patient lung cancer screening decisions, environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influenced screening decisions. The findings suggest that systems-level interventions, such as those that help practitioners understand and discuss patients' prior negative health care experiences, are needed to promote effective screening decision-making.

Pediatric Minor Head Trauma: Factors Affecting the Anxiety of Parents.

Managing the anxiety of the parents of pediatric patients with head trauma is challenging. This study aimed to examine the factors that affect anxiety levels of parents whose children were admitted to the emergency department with minor head trauma. In this prospective study, the parents of 663 consecutive pediatric patients were invited to answer a questionnaire. Parents of 600 children participated in the study. The parents who believed they were provided sufficient information and who were satisfied with the service received had significantly more improvement in anxiety-related questions. Cranial X-ray assessment had a significantly positive impact on the anxiety of the parents, whereas cranial computed tomography and neurosurgery consultation did not. In assessing pediatric minor head trauma, cranial computed tomography imaging and neurosurgery consultation should not be expected to relieve the anxiety of the parents. However, adequately informing them and providing satisfaction are the factors that could lead to improvement.

Real-World Lung Cancer CT Screening Performance, Smoking Behavior, and Adherence to Recommendations: Lung-RADS Category and Smoking Status Predict Adherence.

BACKGROUND. Low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) has been shown to decrease mortality in persons with a significant smoking history. However, adherence in real-world LCS programs is significantly lower than in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess real-world LDCT LCS performance and factors predictive of adherence to LCS recommendations. METHODS. We retrospectively identified all persons who underwent at least two LCS examinations from 2014 to 2019. Patient demographics, smoking history and behavior changes, Lung-RADS category, PPV, NPV, and adherence to screening recommendations were recorded. Predictors of adherence were assessed via univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS. A total of 260 persons returned for follow-up LDCT (57.7% had two, 34.2% had three, 7.7% had four, and 0.4% had five LDCT examinations). A total of 43 of 260 (16.5%) had positive (Lung-RADS category 3 or above) scans, of which 27 of 260 persons (10.3%) were graded as Lung-RADS category 3, eight of 260 (3.1%) were category 4A, six of 260 (2.3%) were category 4B, and two of 260 (0.8%) were category 4X. Cancer was diagnosed in four of the 260 (three with lung cancer and one with metastatic melanoma). A total of 143 of 260 (55.0%) persons were current smokers at baseline and 121 of 260 (46.5%) were current smokers at the last round of LCS. LCS had sensitivity of 100.0%, specificity of 84.8%, PPV of 9.3%, and NPV of 100%. Overall adherence was 43.0% but increased progressively with higher Lung-RADS category (Lung-RADS 1: 33.2%; Lung-RADS 2: 46.3%; Lung-RADS 3: 53.8%; Lung-RADS 4A: 77.8%; Lung-RADS 4B: 83.3%; Lung-RADS 4X: 100%; p < .001). was also higher in former versus current smokers (50.0% vs 36.2%; p < .001). Being a former smoker and having a nodule that is Lung-RADS category 3 or greater were the only significant independent predictors of adherence. CONCLUSION. Our real-world LCS program showed very high sensitivity and NPV, but moderate specificity and very low PPV. Adherence to LCS recommendations increased with former versus current smokers and in those with positive (Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) LCS examinations. Adherence was less than 50.0% in current smokers and persons with negative (Lung-RADS categories 1 or 2) LCS examinations. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results offer a road map for targeted performance improvement by focusing on LCS subjects less likely to remain in the program, such as persons with negative LCS examinations and persons who continue to smoke, potentially improving LCS cost effectiveness and maximizing its societal benefits.

Psychological outcomes of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in a multisite demonstration screening pilot: the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of psychological burden in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials may lack generalisability due to participation bias and control arms having elevated distress. METHODS: Current and former smokers (n=787, aged 60-75) within a real-world screening demonstration pilot completed measures of lung cancer worry at three time points (T0: appointment, T1: next day, T2: 3 months) and anxiety and depression at two time points (T0 and T2). A 'screening unaware' community sample (n=383) with the same age and smoking characteristics completed these measures once (T0). Mean scores were compared by sample type and LDCT result. RESULTS: Compared with the community sample (T0), mean scores were higher in the screening sample, and statistically significantly increased in adjusted analyses, for lung cancer worry at T0 and T2 (mean (M): 9.32; 95% CI 8.96 to 9.69 vs M: 11.34; 11.09 to 11.59 and M: 11.88; 11.49 to 12.27), for anxiety at T0 and T2 (M: 3.32; 2.94 to 3.70 vs M: 4.73; 4.42 to 5.04 and M: 5.78; 5.33 to 6.23) and depression at T2 (M: 3.85; 3.44 to 4.27 vs M: 4.15; 3.76 to 4.55). Scores were highest for those with indeterminate (eg, T2 anxiety M: 6.93; 5.65 to 8.21) and incidental findings (primary care follow-up M: 5.34; 4.67 to 6.02) and those ineligible for screening (M: 6.51; 5.25 to 7.77). Being female, younger, not in paid employment, not married/cohabiting with a partner and lower education predicted poorer psychological outcomes at T0, but not T2 after adjusting for baseline scores. Mean scores remained within 'normal' clinical ranges. CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was raised among high-risk individuals undergoing LDCT screening in a real-world setting, but overall differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. It will be critical to monitor the psychological impact of services longitudinally across diverse settings, including subgroups vulnerable to clinically elevated distress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Lung Screen Uptake Trial was registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy (ISRCTN) (Number: ISRCTN21774741) on 23 September 2015 and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02558101) on 22 September 2015.

Factors influencing lung cancer screening completion following participation in shared decision-making: A retrospective study in a U.S. academic health system.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making (SDM) between patients and designated health professionals is recommended by several professional organizations prior to lung cancer screening by low dose CT (LDCT). This study seeks to identify factors, including characteristics of patients and referring clinicians, that influence LDCT screening completion following participation in SDM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study consisted of n = 171 patients eligible for LDCT screening and who participated in SDM between 2016 and 2017 in one of two sites in Prisma Health, an academic health care delivery system in South Carolina. Patient characteristics included age, sex, race, body mass index, marital status, insurance, smoking status and history, family history of lung cancer, SDM site, and distance to screening site. Characteristics of referred clinicians included age, sex, race, specialty, years of practice, education, and residency. Descriptive statistics and multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to compare effects of patient and referring clinician characteristics on LDCT completion. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients (89%) completed LDCT screening after participation in SDM. SDM site (p = 0.02), longer distances to the screening site (p = 0.03), referrals from internal medicine clinicians (p = 0.03), and referrals from younger clinicians (p = 0.01) and from those with less years of experience (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with a lower likelihood of screening completion. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors significantly associated with screening completion were identified. This information can assist with development of interventions to improve communication and decision-making between patients, clinicians, and SDM health professionals, and inform design of targeted decision aids embedded into SDM procedures.

Psychosocial consequences of false positives in the Danish Lung Cancer CT Screening Trial: a nested matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer CT screening can reduce lung cancer mortality, but high false-positive rates may cause adverse psychosocial consequences. The aim was to analyse the psychosocial consequences of false-positive lung cancer CT screening using the lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences of Screening in Lung Cancer (COS-LC). DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a matched cohort study, nested in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). PARTICIPANTS: Our study included all 130 participants in the DLCST with positive CT results in screening rounds 2-5, who had completed the COS-LC questionnaire. Participants were split into a true-positive and a false-positive group and were then matched 1:2 with a control group (n=248) on sex, age (±3 years) and the time of screening for the positive CT groups or clinic visit for the control group. The true positives and false positives were also matched 1:2 with participants with negative CT screening results (n=252). PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were psychosocial consequences measured at five time points. RESULTS: False positives experienced significantly more negative psychosocial consequences in seven outcomes at 1 week and in three outcomes at 1 month compared with the control group and the true-negative group (mean ∆ score >0 and p<0.001). True positives experienced significantly more negative psychosocial consequences in one outcome at 1 week (mean ∆ score 2.86 (95% CI 1.01 to 4.70), p=0.0024) and in five outcomes at 1 month (mean ∆ score >0 and p<0.004) compared with the true-negative group and the control group. No long-term psychosocial consequences were identified either in false positives or true positives. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a false-positive result in lung cancer screening was associated with negative short-term psychosocial consequences. These findings contribute to the evidence on harms of screening and should be taken into account when considering implementation of lung cancer screening programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00496977.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. Objective: To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Results: Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

Development of Decisional Values Statements for Lung Cancer Screening Among African American Smokers.

Lung cancer screening via low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been underutilized by high-risk current and former smokers since its approval in 2013. Further, lower use of other evidence-based cancer screening tests (e.g., colorectal cancer, breast cancer) has been noted among African Americans when compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Reasons for low uptake are multilayered but include the need for consideration of patients' personal values about the screening decision. The goal of the present study was to (1) identify positive and negative factors specific to lung cancer screening via LDCT and (2) develop statements to capture values about the screening test for use in a new measure of decisional values. Key informant interviews (n = 9) identified several benefits and risks of lung cancer screening that may be important to African American smokers. Based on these interviews, a pool of items with the values statements was administered to a convenience sample of 119 African Americans [aged 55-80 years, current or former smokers (who quit < 15 years), and without lung cancer]. An exploratory factor analysis revealed two components explaining 64% of the variance: cons of screening (e.g., "make you feel badly about your smoking history") and pros of screening (e.g., "lowering your risk of dying from lung cancer"). The final 12-item measure had very good internal consistency (α = 0.89 overall; α = 0.86 and 0.88 for subscales, respectively). This tool provides a promising values measure for lung cancer screening among African Americans and could inform future values clarification tools promoting informed and shared decision-making.

Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals' specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described. Methods: In this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method. Results: Fatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the 'right' to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it.

Oncology patients' experience of a routine surveillance CT examination: Relationships and communication.

INTRODUCTION: The question of radiographers' capacity to establish short time relationships as well as decoding patients' needs and expectations simultaneously with performing high technological examination frequently arises in the clinical practice. Additionally, the constant focus on technology and the fact that radiographers work in high productive departments accentuates the issue. Patients' experiences with radiology seem to be a neglected area of research and may help to identify areas for improvement in this highly technological and productive field. The purpose of the study was to explore oncology patients' experiences of a routine surveillance CT examination and their need for relationships and communication with the radiographer as part of the CT examination. METHODS: The study included patients diagnosed with cancer and in need of a CT examination as part of their course of treatment, and 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Themes were constructed and narratively reported. To increase validity, the themes were identified, discussed and formulated by the author group. RESULTS: Four themes were constructed based on the analysis: 1: The professional radiographer, 2. Disease and treatment, 3. The examination environment and 4: While waiting. CONCLUSION: The lack of focus on radiographers' capacity to establish relations, to consider each patient as an individual human being and being able to show sincere interest and empathy were highlighted. Findings illuminated the patient's need for relationship and communication with the radiographer as part of a CT examination.

Patient Perceptions of CT Imaging in a Diverse Patient Sample.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patient perceptions related to CT and evaluate variation related to patient sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved survey of adult patients undergoing outpatient CT at a large academic hospital administered May 2016 to March 2017. The survey included questions about participant demographic and socioeconomic characteristics as well as scales that addressed five perceptual constructs related to their CT examination: knowledge, benefits, barriers, expectations, and trust. Two of these constructs use the Health Belief Model as a conceptual framework, and questions were adapted from the Benefits and Barriers Scale for Screening Mammography. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Heterogeneous choice models were used to evaluate associations between participant characteristics and the perceptual constructs. RESULTS: In all, 302 surveys were completed by a diverse patient sample (33% non-Hispanic white, 29% Hispanic or Latino, 24% black, 8% mixed or other race, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% American Indian or Alaska Native). A large majority of participants responded positively to CT examination perceptions for each item with: high knowledge (71%-97%), positive expectations (94%-98%), high trust (92%) and benefits (67%-93%), and low barriers (only 9%-17% reported). In addition, 26% of participants reported seeking information about the CT before their appointment, with calling their physician's office the most common approach. The heterogeneous choice models found that responses to nearly all of the scale questions did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics, although in a larger sample some associations may be significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among a diverse sample of patients, perceptions of CT examination were highly positive and similar according to sociodemographic characteristics.

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI (WB-MRI) compared to standard staging investigations, and identify predictors of reduced tolerance. METHODS: Patients recruited to multicentre trials comparing WB-MRI with standard staging scans for lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete two questionnaires: a baseline questionnaire at recruitment, measuring demographics, comorbidities, and distress; and a follow-up questionnaire after staging, measuring recovery time, comparative acceptability/satisfaction between WB-MRI and CT (colorectal cancer) and PET-CT (lung cancer), and perceived scan burden (scored 1, low; 7, high).  Results: 115 patients (median age 66.3 years; 67 males) completed follow up and 103 baseline questionnaires. 69 (63.9%) reported "immediate" recovery from WB-MRI and 73 (65.2%) judged it "very acceptable". Perceived WB-MRI burden was greater than for CT (p < 0.001) and PET-CT (p < 0.001). High distress and comorbidities were associated with greater WB-MRI burden in adjusted analyses, with deprivation only approaching significance (adjusted regression ß = 0.223, p = 0.025; ß = 0.191, p = 0.048; ß = -0.186, p = 0.059 respectively). Age (p = 0.535), gender (p = 0.389), ethnicity (p = 0.081) and cancer type (p = 0.201) were not predictive of WB-MRI burden. CONCLUSION:  WB-MRI is marginally less acceptable and more burdensome than standard scans, particularly for patients with pre-existing distress and comorbidities.  Advances in knowledge: This research shows that WB-MRI scan burden, although low, is higher than for current staging modalities among patients with suspected colorectal or lung cancer. Psychological and physical comorbidities adversely impact on patient experience of WB-MRI. Patients with high distress or comorbid illness may need additional support to undergo a WB-MRI.

Beliefs and Intentions to Undergo Lung Cancer Screening among Korean Males.

PURPOSE: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been reported as an effective screening method for lung cancer in high-risk populations. We aimed to examine willingness to be screened among Korean males using LDCT and to determine factors associated with lung cancer screening intentions (LCS) based on the Health Belief Model (HBM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2015 Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, a cross-sectional survey that utilized nationally representative random sampling. The survey included 1,730 male participants 40-74-year-old. Respondents were questioned regarding their willingness to undergo LCS and components of HBM. Factors associated with intentions to undergo screening were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among participants, 65.2% were current smokers. Among high-risk subjects, 60.6% of men reported intentions to undergo LCS, compared to 49.9% of average-risk males. Men with higher perceived susceptibility in the average- and high-risk groups were, respectively, 1.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.91) and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.14 to 4.63) times more likely to intend to undergo LCS compared to those with lower perceived barriers. Also, men in the average- and high-risk groups with higher perceived barriers to screening were, respectively, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.91) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.92) times less likely to intend to undergo LCS compared to those with lower perceived barriers. CONCLUSION: Tailored interventions designed to promote accurate perceptions of susceptibility and risk, as well as to reduce perceived barriers to screening, may effectively increase adherence to recommendations for LCS among high-risk Korean men.

Management of Traumatic Brain Injury in the Emergency Department: Guideline Adherence and Patient Safety.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury is a common reason not only for emergency visits worldwide but also for significant morbidity and mortality. Several clinical guidelines exist but adherence is generally low. AIM: To study attitudes toward computed tomography of the head among emergency department Change to physicians throughout the article who manage patients with trauma to the head and doctors' adherence to guidelines. METHODS: Quantitative questionnaire study with questionnaires collected over 3 months before introduction of new guidelines. After introduction, intermission of 8 months passed when information and education were given. Thereafter, questionnaires were collected for another 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 694 patients were registered at the emergency department. A total of 161 questionnaires were analyzed; 50.9% did not use guidelines, 39% before intermission, and 60.5% after. When Canadian CT Head Rule was applied, 30.4% of patients with no loss of consciousness were referred to computed tomography, violating guideline recommendation. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are designed to improve performance but are not always applied correctly or as frequently as intended. Information and education did not increase guideline adherence. To improve guideline adherence, more innovative measures than formal guidelines must be undertaken. To find out what these measures are, we suggest qualitative studies to elucidate interventions that will have bigger impact on performance.

Utility of repeat head computed tomography after mild head trauma: influence on short- and long-term prognosis and health-related quality of life.

The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of repeat head CT in a large population of patients with non-isolated blunt mild head trauma (MTBI), especially in the presence of intracranial injury. This is a study of a cohort of 478 non-isolated MTBI patients admitted to the High Dependency Unit of the Emergency Department of the University-Hospital of Florence from July 2008 to December 2013. Results of initial and subsequent head CT scans, and indications for repeat head CT scan (routine vs. neurologic change) were recorded. The study population was divided into two subgroups: 28 (6 %) patients with neurological change or persistently reduced GCS (group GCS-) and 450 (94 %) patients with normal or improving GCS (group GCS+). After 6 months from the event, a telephone interview using SF12 questionnaire was conducted. Among GCS- patients, the admission CT scan showed intracranial lesions (ICI) in 16 (57 %) patients; only two patients had a TBI-related neurosurgical intervention. Among GCS+ patients, the first CT scan showed an ICI in 133 patients; in a significant proportion of patients with ICI at the first CT scan, the injury worsened (40/133, 30 %, p < 0.0001). However, no GCS+ patient had any neurosurgical intervention. We observed a significant reduction in both MCS and PCS scores after the injury compared with the previous period. The number of repeat CT scan was high in patients who presented ICI at the first CT scan; however, no patient with ICI and normal or improving GCS score needed a neurosurgical intervention.

Comparison of oral midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication for children undergoing CT imaging: a randomized, double-blind, and controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Children undergoing computerized tomography (CT) frequently require sedation to allay their anxiety, and prevent motion artifacts and stress of intravenous (IV) cannulation. AIMS: The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of oral midazolam and intranasal dexmedetomidine as sole premedicants in children for carrying out both IV cannulation as well as CT scanning, without the need for additional IV sedatives. METHODS: Fifty-nine children, aged 1-6 years, scheduled to undergo CT imaging under sedation were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg·kg-1 oral midazolam (group M) or 2.5 mcg·kg-1 intranasal dexmedetomidine (group D). After 20-30 min, intravenous cannulation was performed and response to its placement was graded using the Groningen Distress Rating Scale (GDRS). After cannulation, children were transferred on the CT table, and assessed using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). CT imaging was performed without any further sedative if the RSS was ≥4. If there was movement or decrease in sedation depth (RSS ≤ 3), ketamine 1 mg·kg-1 IV was given as an initial dose, followed by subsequent doses of 0.5 mg·kg-1 IV if required. RESULTS: A Significantly higher proportion of children in group D (67%) achieved RSS ≥ 4 as compared to group M (24%) (P-0.002). The risk ratio (95% CI) was 2.76 (1.38-5.52). Significantly lower GDRS scores were noted in group D (1(1-2)) as compared to group M (2(1-2)) at the time of venipuncture (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In the doses and time intervals used in our study, intranasal dexmedetomidine (2.5 µg·kg-1 ) was found to be superior to oral midazolam (0.5 mg·kg-1 ) for producing satisfactory sedation for CT imaging.

Psychological Burden Associated With Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose radiation computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality and is recommended for high-risk current and former smokers. Several potential harms associated with LCS have been identified, including the potential for psychological burden. To summarize the current state of the scientific knowledge on psychological burden associated with LCS, we performed a systematic search of the contemporary quantitative and qualitative research literature. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that evaluated the effect of LCS with LDCT on psychological burden and health-related quality of life assessed using validated and nonvalidated measures. PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Scopus were searched for English language articles published between 2004 and January 2015. Data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Thirteen studies were included that met our inclusion criteria. Overall, results were variable with some studies reporting worse psychological burden for patients with indeterminate results at prescreening, after screening, and at short-term follow-up (<6 months after screen). These adverse effects diminished or resolved at long-term follow-up (> 6 months after screen). LCS might be associated with short-term adverse psychological burden, particularly after a false positive result. However, these adverse effects diminished over time. The amount of current evidence is small, with limitations in study design and use of outcome measures. More high-quality research is needed to determine the frequency, duration, and overall magnitude of LCS-related psychological burden in nonclinical trial settings.

Measurement Variability of Persistent Pulmonary Subsolid Nodules on Same-Day Repeat CT: What Is the Threshold to Determine True Nodule Growth during Follow-Up?

PURPOSE: To assess the measurement variability of subsolid nodules (SSNs) in follow-up situations and to compare the degree of variability between measurement metrics. METHODS: Two same-day repeat-CT scans of 69 patients (24 men and 45 women) with 69 SSNs were randomly assigned as initial or follow-up scans and were read by the same (situation 1) or different readers (situation 2). SSN size and solid portion size were measured in both situations. Measurement variability was calculated and coefficients of variation were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Measurement variability for the longest and average diameter of SSNs was ±1.3 mm (±13.0%) and ±1.3 mm (±14.4%) in situation 1, and ±2.2 mm (±21.0%) and ±2.1 mm (±21.3%) in situation 2, respectively. For solid portion, measurement variability on lung and mediastinal windows was ±1.2 mm (±27.1%) and ±0.8 mm (±24.0%) in situation 1, and ±3.7 mm (±61.0%) and ±1.5 mm (±47.3%) in situation 2, respectively. There were no significant differences in the degree of variability between the longest and average diameters and between the lung and mediastinal window settings (p>0.05). However, measurement variability significantly increased when the follow-up and initial CT readers were different (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A cutoff of ±2.2 mm can be reliably used to determine true nodule growth on follow-up CT. Solid portion measurements were not reliable in evaluating SSNs' change when readers of initial and follow-up CT were different.

Randomized controlled trial of relaxation music to reduce heart rate in patients undergoing cardiac CT.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the heart rate lowering effect of relaxation music in patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA), pulmonary vein CT (PVCT) and coronary calcium score CT (CCS). METHODS: Patients were randomised to a control group (i.e. standard of care protocol) or to a relaxation music group (ie. standard of care protocol with music). The groups were compared for heart rate, radiation dose, image quality and dose of IV metoprolol. Both groups completed State-Trait Anxiety Inventory anxiety questionnaires to assess patient experience. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven patients were recruited (61.9 % males); mean age 56y (19-86 y); 127 CCTA, 17 PVCT, 53 CCS. No significant difference in heart rate, radiation dose, image quality, metoprolol dose and anxiety scores. 86 % of patients enjoyed the music. 90 % of patients in the music group expressed a strong preference to have music for future examinations. The patient cohort demonstrated low anxiety levels prior to CT. CONCLUSION: Relaxation music in CCTA, PVCT and CCS does not reduce heart rate or IV metoprolol use. Patients showed low levels of anxiety indicating that anxiolytics may not have a significant role in lowering heart rate. Music can be used in cardiac CT to improve patient experience. KEY POINTS: • Relaxation music does not reduce heart rate in cardiac CT • Relaxation music does not reduce beta-blocker use in cardiac CT • Relaxation music has no effect on cardiac CT image quality • Low levels of anxiety are present in patients prior to cardiac CT • Patients enjoyed the relaxation music and this results in improved patient experience.