Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 May;10(5):2427-2440.
doi: 10.21037/tlcr-20-1179.

The person behind the nodule: a narrative review of the psychological impact of lung cancer screening

Affiliations
Review

The person behind the nodule: a narrative review of the psychological impact of lung cancer screening

Samantha L Quaife et al. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021 May.

Abstract

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality globally, responsible for an estimated 1.76 million deaths worldwide in 2018 alone. Screening adults at high risk of lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) significantly reduces lung cancer mortality by finding the disease at an early, treatable stage. Many countries are actively considering whether to implement screening for their high-risk populations in light of the recently published Dutch-Belgian trial 'NELSON'. In deciding whether to implement a national screening programme, policymakers must weigh up the evidence for the relative risks posed to the entire screened population, including the potential psychological burden. This narrative review aimed to critically summarise the evidence for both negative and positive psychological responses experienced throughout the LDCT screening pathway, to describe their magnitude, duration and clinical relevance, and to draw out different aspects of measurement design crucial to their interpretation. A further aim was to discuss the available evidence for individual differences in psychological response, as well as interventions designed to promote psychological well-being. In summary, there was no evidence that the LDCT screening process caused adverse psychological outcomes overall, although those receiving indeterminate and suspicious LDCT results did report clinically raised anxiety and lung cancer-specific distress in the short-term. There was early evidence that demographic factors, smoking status and screening-ineligibility could be associated with individual differences in propensity to experience distress. Qualitative data suggested health beliefs could be modifiable mediators of these individual differences, but their aetiology requires quantitative and prospective research. There was also some evidence of positive psychological responses that could be capitalised on, and of the potential for person-centred communication interventions to achieve this. Further research needs to be embedded in real-world LDCT lung cancer screening services and use condition-specific measures to monitor outcomes and test evidence-based communication interventions in promoting psychological well-being.

Keywords: Anxiety; depression; early detection of cancer; lung neoplasms; quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-1179). The series “Lung cancer screening” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. SQ reports funding from Cancer Research UK and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, as well as support for attending meetings from the British Thoracic Oncology Group, InHealth, and the European Respiratory Society, outside the submitted work. SJ reports funding from GRAIL Inc and Owlstone, consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Bard1 Lifescience and Astra-Zeneca, support for attending meetings from Astra-Zeneca and Takeda, participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for the Must-ARDS trial Athersys, participation on a DMEC for the REALIST trial, stock for BARD1 Lifescience, and options for Optellum, outside the submitted work. KB reports funding from the Welsh Government via Health and Care Research Wales, a personal honorarium from AstraZeneca for speaking at a workshop, and support for attending a meeting from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. 10.3322/caac.21492 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409. 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moyer VA. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:330-8. 10.7326/M13-2771 - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial. N Engl J Med 2020;382:503-13. 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva:World Health Organisation; 1968. Available online: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/37650/1/WHO_PHP_34.pdf