Research ArticleOriginal Research

Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool

Erin A. Hirsch, Jamie L. Studts, Susan Zane, Marina McCreight and Amy G. Huebschmann
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2025, 38 (1) 56-83; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240142R1

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Aberle DR,
    2. Adams AM,
    3. Berg CD
    , National Lung Screening Trial Research Teamet al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395–409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. de Koning HJ,
    2. van der Aalst CM,
    3. de Jong PA,
    4. et al
    . Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 2020;382:503–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Final Recommendation Statement. Lung cancer: screening. US Preventive Services Task Force. 2021 Mar 9. Available at: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/lung-cancer-screening#fullrecommendationstart. Accessed April 15, 2023.
  4. 4.↵
  5. 5.↵
    1. Silvestri GA,
    2. Goldman L,
    3. Tanner NT,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes from more than 1 million people screened for lung cancer with low-dose CT imaging. Chest 2023;S0012-3692:00175–7. [published online ahead of print, 2023 Feb 10].
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Yousaf-Khan U,
    2. van der Aalst C,
    3. de Jong PA,
    4. et al
    . Final screening round of the NELSON lung cancer screening trial: the effect of a 2.5-year screening interval. Thorax 2017;72:48–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Screening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439R). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National Coverage Analysis Decision Memo. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncacal-decision-memo.aspx?proposed=N&ncaid=304. Accessed April 15, 2023.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Wang GX,
    2. Baggett TP,
    3. Pandharipande PV,
    4. et al
    . Barriers to lung cancer screening engagement from the patient and provider perspective. Radiology 2019;290:278–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Carter-Harris L,
    2. Gould MK
    . Multilevel barriers to the successful implementation of lung cancer screening: why does it have to be so hard? Annals ATS 2017;14:1261–5.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    American Thoracic Society and American Lung Association. Lung Cancer Screening Implementation Guide. Available at: https://www.thoracic.org/members/assemblies/assemblies/thoracic-oncology/resources/implementation-guide-for-lung-cancer-screening.pdf. Accessed on April 15, 2023.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Smith HB,
    2. Ward R,
    3. Frazier C,
    4. Angotti J,
    5. Tanner NT
    . Guideline-recommended lung cancer screening adherence is superior with a centralized approach. Chest 2022;161:818–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kim RY,
    2. Rendle KA,
    3. Mitra N,
    4. et al
    . Racial disparities in adherence to annual lung cancer screening and recommended follow-up care: a multicenter cohort study. Annals ATS 2022;19:1561–9.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Emery JD,
    2. Shaw K,
    3. Williams B,
    4. et al
    . The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014;11:38–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Rajupet S,
    2. Doshi D,
    3. Wisnivesky JP,
    4. Lin JJ
    . Attitudes about lung cancer screening: primary care providers versus specialists. Clin Lung Cancer 2017;18:e417–e423.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Doubeni CA,
    2. Wilkinson JM,
    3. Korsen N,
    4. Midthun DE
    . Lung cancer screening guidelines implementation in primary care: a call to action [published correction appears in Ann Fam Med 2020;18:389]. Ann Fam Med 2020;18:196–201.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Coughlin JM,
    2. Zang Y,
    3. Terranella S,
    4. et al
    . Understanding barriers to lung cancer screening in primary care. J Thorac Dis 2020;12:2536–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Mańczuk M,
    2. Przepiórka I,
    3. Cedzyńska M,
    4. et al
    . Actual and potential role of primary care physicians in cancer prevention. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:427. Published 2023 Jan 9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Thorpe KE,
    2. Zwarenstein M,
    3. Oxman AD,
    4. et al
    . A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:464–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Loudon K,
    2. Treweek S,
    3. Sullivan F,
    4. Donnan P,
    5. Thorpe KE,
    6. Zwarenstein M
    . The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ 2015;350:h2147. Published 2015 May 8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Luoma KA,
    2. Leavitt IM,
    3. Marrs JC,
    4. et al
    . How can clinical practices pragmatically increase physical activity for patients with type 2 diabetes? A systematic review. Transl Behav Med 2017;7:751–72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sanchez MA,
    2. Rabin BA,
    3. Gaglio B,
    4. et al
    . A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs? Behav Med Pract Policy Res 2013;3:392–401.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Ettori-Ajasse I,
    2. Tatin E,
    3. Forbes G,
    4. Eldridge S,
    5. Dibao-Dina C
    . How pragmatic are the randomised trials used in recommendations for control of glycosylated haemoglobin levels in type 2 diabetic patients in general practice: an application of the PRECIS II tool. Trials 2020;21:281. Published 2020 Mar 19.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Bonney A,
    2. Malouf R,
    3. Marchal C,
    4. et al
    . Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;8:CD013829. Published 2022 Aug 3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Hoffman RM,
    2. Atallah RP,
    3. Struble RD,
    4. Badgett RG
    . Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35:3015–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Ebell MH,
    2. Bentivegna M,
    3. Hulme C
    . Cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening trials: a meta-analysis [published correction appears in Ann Fam Med 2021; 19:292]. Ann Fam Med 2020;18:545–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Kinsinger LS,
    2. Anderson C,
    3. Kim J,
    4. et al
    . Implementation of lung cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:399–406.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Herzlinger RE,
    2. Schleicher SM,
    3. Mullangi S
    . Health care delivery innovations that integrate care? Yes!: but integrating what? JAMA 2016;315:1109–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Rama A
    , America Medical Association. Policy research perspectives payment and delivery in 2016: the prevalence of medical homes, accountable care organizations, and payment methods reported by physicians. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/public/health-policy/prp-medical-home-aco-payment.pdf. Accessed on May 10, 2023.
  29. 29.↵
    1. Loudon K,
    2. Zwarenstein M,
    3. Sullivan FM,
    4. et al
    . The PRECIS-2 tool has good interrater reliability and modest discriminant validity. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;88:113–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. LaRocca RV,
    2. Falk R,
    3. Cerrito P,
    4. et al
    . Early results of a randomized prospective screening trial of annual lowdose spiral chest computed tomography scanning versus annual chest radiography of Kentucky patients at increased risk for lung cancer: Jewish Hospital Lung Cancer Screening. Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2002;21:306a, Abstract 1220.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Yang W,
    2. Qian F,
    3. Teng J,
    4. et al
    . Community-based lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in China: results of the baseline screening. Lung Cancer 2018;117:20–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Infante M,
    2. Cavuto S,
    3. Lutman FR,
    4. et al
    . Long-term follow-up results of the DANTE Trial, a randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;191:1166–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Blanchon T,
    2. Bréchot JM,
    3. Grenier PA
    , Dépiscan Groupet al. Baseline results of the Depiscan study: a French randomized pilot trial of lung cancer screening comparing low dose CT scan (LDCT) and chest X-ray (CXR). Lung Cancer 2007;58:50–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Wille MM,
    2. Dirksen A,
    3. Ashraf H,
    4. et al
    . Results of the randomized DLSCT with focus on high-risk profiling. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;193:542–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Lopes Pegna A,
    2. Picozzi G,
    3. Falaschi F,
    4. et al
    . Four-year results of low-dose CT screening and nodule management in the ITALUNG trial. J Thorac Oncol 2013;8:866–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Gohagan JK,
    2. Marcus PM,
    3. Fagerstrom RM
    , Lung screening study research groupet al. Final results of the Lung screening study, a randomized feasibility study of spiral CT versus chest X-ray screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2005;47:9–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    1. Becker N,
    2. Motsch E,
    3. Trotter A,
    4. et al
    . Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-results from the randomized German LUSI trial. Int J Cancer 2020;146:1503–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Pastorino U,
    2. Silva M,
    3. Sestini S,
    4. et al
    . Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. Ann Oncol 2019;30:1672.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Field JK,
    2. Duffy SW,
    3. Baldwin DR,
    4. et al
    . UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening. Thorax 2016;71:161–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Reese TJ,
    2. Schlechter CR,
    3. Kramer H,
    4. et al
    . Implementing lung cancer screening in primary care: needs assessment and implementation strategy design. Transl Behav Med 2022;12:187–97.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Golden SE,
    2. Currier JJ,
    3. Ramalingam N,
    4. et al
    . Primary care providers experiences implementing low-dose computed tomography recommendations for lung cancer screening. J Am Board Fam Med 2024;36:952–65. Published 2024 Jan 5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Pérez Jolles M,
    2. Willging CE,
    3. Stadnick NA,
    4. et al
    . Understanding implementation research collaborations from a co-creation lens: recommendations for a path forward. Front Health Serv 2022;2:942658.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Tanner NT,
    2. Dai L,
    3. Bade BC,
    4. Gebregziabher M,
    5. Silvestri GA
    . Assessing the generalizability of the national lung screening trial: comparison of patients with stage 1 disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;196:602–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. van Meerbeeck JP,
    2. Franck C
    . Lung cancer screening in Europe: where are we in 2021? Transl Lung Cancer Res 2021;10:2407–17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Feldstein AC,
    2. Glasgow RE
    . A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008;34:228–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Glasgow RE,
    2. Vogt TM,
    3. Boles SM
    . Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1322–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords