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
. 2025 Sep 1;131(17):e70008.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.70008.

The quality of patient decision aids for lung cancer screening: Results from an environmental scan

Affiliations
Review

The quality of patient decision aids for lung cancer screening: Results from an environmental scan

Robert J Volk et al. Cancer. .

Abstract

Shared decision making is recommended for lung cancer screening (LCS) by professional organizations and payers. Patient decision aids can be used to support shared decision making, but they need to meet quality standards to minimize the potential for biased and poorly informed patient decisions. After the updated LCS recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force in 2021, the authors conducted an environmental scan of public-facing patient educational materials and evaluated them against criteria from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards for high-quality patient decision aids. The Google site search function was used to search websites from National Cancer Institute-funded cancer centers, professional societies, patient advocacy groups, cancer coalitions, and private organizations for educational materials on LCS. A general web search using Google, Google Scholar, and select databases was also conducted. Considerations unique to the LCS context (e.g., the importance of annual screening and smoking cessation) were documented. The search identified 96 educational materials that included information about both benefits and harms of LCS. Of these, 39 did not meet qualifying criteria for decision aids, with failure to explicitly identify LCS as a decision being the primary reason for exclusion. Only 10 of the remaining decision aids met quality criteria from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. These aids emphasized that LCS should be performed annually, most avoided stigmatizing language, and several included personalization features using prediction models. Clinicians and patients can be confident in using these high-quality aids to complement the process of shared decision making for LCS. Validated aids in languages other than English and Spanish are needed.

Keywords: cancer early detection; decision aids; lung neoplasms, patient education, shared decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Lauren S. Rosenthal and Robert A. Smith report that the American Cancer Society receives unrestricted educational funding by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi‐Sankyo, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, Guardant Health, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novocure, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi‐Genzyme, and Takeda in the form of sponsorships to support the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Modified PRISMA flowchart. IPDAS indicates International Patient Decision Aid Standards; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Reasons tools failed to meet International Patient Decision Aid Standards‐qualifying criteria for decision aids.

Similar articles

References

    1. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(1):12‐49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21820 - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team; Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung‐cancer mortality with low‐dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395‐409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 - DOI - PMC - 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(6):503‐513. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jonas DE, Reuland DS, Reddy SM, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low‐dose computed tomography: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325(10):971‐987. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.0377 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325(10):962‐970. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources