Suppr超能文献

基于网络的癌症风险计算器比较,用于肺癌筛查的共享决策信息。

A Comparison of Web-Based Cancer Risk Calculators That Inform Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening.

机构信息

Department of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Bachelor of Public Health, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jun;36(6):1543-1552. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06754-0. Epub 2021 Apr 9.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

To align patient preferences and understanding with harm-benefit perception, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that providers engage patients in a collaborative shared decision-making (SDM) visit before LDCT. Nonetheless, patients and providers often turn instead to the web for help making decisions. Several web-based lung cancer risk calculators (LCRCs) provide risk predictions and screening recommendations; however, the accuracy, consistency, and subsequent user interpretation of these predictions between LCRCs is ambiguous. We conducted a systematic review to assess this variability.

DESIGN

Through a systematic Internet search, we identified 10 publicly available LCRCs and categorized their input variables: demographic factors, cancer history, smoking status, and personal/environmental factors. To assess variance in LCRC risk prediction outputs, we developed 16 hypothetical patients along a risk continuum, illustrated by randomly assigned input variables, and individually compared them to each LCRC against the empirically validated "gold-standard" PLCO risk model in order to evaluate the accuracy of the LCRCs within identical time-windows.

RESULTS

From the inclusion criteria, 11 calculators were initially identified. The analyzed calculators also vary in output characteristics and risk depiction for hypothetical patients. There were 13 total instances across ten hypothetical patients in which the sample standard error exceeded the mean risk percentage across all general samples and set standard calculations. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variability in the depiction of lung cancer risk for hypothetical patients exists across the web-based LCRCs due to their respective inputs and risk prediction models. To foster informed decision-making in the SDM-LDCT context, the input variables, risk prediction models, risk depiction, and screening recommendations must be standardized to best practice.

摘要

简介

为了使患者的偏好和理解与危害-效益感知保持一致,医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)要求医生在进行低剂量计算机断层扫描(LDCT)之前,与患者进行协作式共享决策(SDM)访问。然而,患者和医生通常转而在网上寻求帮助来做出决策。有几种基于网络的肺癌风险计算器(LCRC)提供风险预测和筛查建议;然而,这些计算器之间的预测准确性、一致性以及随后的用户解释并不明确。我们进行了一项系统综述来评估这种变异性。

设计

通过系统的互联网搜索,我们确定了 10 个公开可用的 LCRC,并对其输入变量进行了分类:人口统计学因素、癌症史、吸烟状况以及个人/环境因素。为了评估 LCRC 风险预测结果的差异,我们沿着风险连续体开发了 16 个假设患者,并将他们的随机分配输入变量与每个 LCRC 进行单独比较,与经过验证的“黄金标准”PLCO 风险模型进行比较,以评估 LCRCs 在相同时间窗口内的准确性。

结果

根据纳入标准,最初确定了 11 个计算器。分析的计算器在输出特征和假设患者的风险描述方面也有所不同。在十个假设患者中,共有 13 个总实例,其中样本标准差超过了所有一般样本和设定标准计算的平均风险百分比。最大测量差异为 16.49%,患者 8;最小差异为 0.01%,患者 2。最大测量差异为 16.49%,患者 8;最小差异为 0.01%,患者 2。

结论

由于各自的输入和风险预测模型,网络上的 LCRC 对假设患者的肺癌风险描述存在很大差异。为了在 SDM-LDCT 环境中促进知情决策,必须对输入变量、风险预测模型、风险描述和筛查建议进行标准化,以达到最佳实践。

相似文献

1
A Comparison of Web-Based Cancer Risk Calculators That Inform Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening.
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jun;36(6):1543-1552. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06754-0. Epub 2021 Apr 9.
4
What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Feb;35(2):546-553. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05516-3. Epub 2019 Nov 19.
7
Primary Care Physician Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening.
J Cancer Educ. 2022 Aug;37(4):1099-1107. doi: 10.1007/s13187-020-01925-9. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
8
Low-Dose CT Scan for Lung Cancer Screening: Clinical and Coding Considerations.
Chest. 2017 Jul;152(1):204-209. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.03.019. Epub 2017 Mar 21.
9
Implementing Decision Coaching for Lung Cancer Screening in the Low-Dose Computed Tomography Setting.
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Aug;16(8):e703-e725. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00453. Epub 2020 Mar 24.
10
Primary care outreach and decision counseling for lung cancer screening.
J Med Screen. 2024 Sep;31(3):150-156. doi: 10.1177/09691413231213495. Epub 2023 Nov 21.

引用本文的文献

1
Clinical Adjuncts to Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review.
Thorac Surg Clin. 2023 Nov;33(4):421-432. doi: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2023.03.002. Epub 2023 May 12.
2
A Feasible Path to Reductions in Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening?
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2022 May 2;6(3). doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkac034.

本文引用的文献

1
Lung Cancer 2020: Epidemiology, Etiology, and Prevention.
Clin Chest Med. 2020 Mar;41(1):1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ccm.2019.10.001.
2
Use of the Shared Decision-Making Visit for Lung Cancer Screening Among Medicare Enrollees.
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 May 1;179(5):716-718. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6405.
3
Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1311-1316. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054.
4
A Validated Clinical Risk Prediction Model for Lung Cancer in Smokers of All Ages and Exposure Types: A HUNT Study.
EBioMedicine. 2018 May;31:36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.03.027. Epub 2018 Mar 30.
5
Cancer statistics, 2018.
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442. Epub 2018 Jan 4.
6
Lung Cancer Risk and Residential Exposure to Air Pollution: A Korean Population-Based Case-Control Study.
Yonsei Med J. 2017 Nov;58(6):1111-1118. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.6.1111.
7
8
Evaluations of Implementation at Early-Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: Lessons Learned.
Chest. 2017 Jul;152(1):70-80. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.02.012. Epub 2017 Feb 20.
9
Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Counseling and Shared Decision-Making Visit.
Chest. 2017 Mar;151(3):572-578. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.027. Epub 2016 Nov 1.
10
Shared decision-making as an existential journey: Aiming for restored autonomous capacity.
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Sep;99(9):1505-10. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.014. Epub 2016 Jul 7.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验