Search

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION Having a chronic disease either caused or worsened by tobacco smoking does not always translate into quitting smoking. Although smoking cessation is one of the most cost-effective medical interventions, it remains poorly implemented in healthcare settings. The aim was to examine whether smokers with chronic and respiratory diseases were more likely to receive support to quit smoking by a healthcare provider or make a quit attempt than smokers without these diseases. METHODS This population-based study included a sample of 6011 adult smokers in six European countries. The participants were interviewed face-to-face and asked questions on sociodemographic characteristics, current diagnoses for chronic diseases, healthcare visits in the last 12 months and, if so, whether they had received any support to quit smoking. Questions on smoking behavior included nicotine dependence, motivation to quit smoking and quit attempts in the last 12 months. The results are presented as weighted percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and as adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI based on logistic regression analyses. RESULTS Smokers with chronic respiratory disease, those aged 55 years and older, as well as those with one or more chronic diseases were more likely to receive smoking cessation advice from a healthcare professional. Making a quit attempt in the last year was related to younger age, high educational level, higher motivation to quit, lower nicotine dependence and having received advice to quit from a healthcare professional but not with having chronic diseases. There were significant differences between countries with smokers in Romania consistently reporting more support to quit as well as quit attempts. CONCLUSIONS Although smokers with respiratory disease did indeed receive smoking cessation support more often than smokers without disease, many smokers did not receive any advice or support to quit during a healthcare visit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]