PLoS ONE (Jan 2018)

A national survey of lung cancer specialists' views on low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in Korea.

  • Dong Wook Shin,
  • Sohyun Chun,
  • Young Il Kim,
  • Seung Joon Kim,
  • Jung Soo Kim,
  • SeMin Chong,
  • Young Sik Park,
  • Sang-Yun Song,
  • Jin Han Lee,
  • Hee Kyung Ahn,
  • Eun Young Kim,
  • Sei Hoon Yang,
  • Myoung Kyu Lee,
  • Deog Gon Cho,
  • Tae Won Jang,
  • Ji Woong Son,
  • Jeong-Seon Ryu,
  • Moon-June Cho

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192626
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 2
p. e0192626

Abstract

Read online

Lung cancer specialists play an important role in designing and implementing lung cancer screening. We aimed to describe their 1) attitudes toward low-dose lung computed tomography (LDCT) screening, 2) current practices and experiences of LDCT screening and 3) attitudes and opinions towards national lung cancer screening program (NLCSP). We conducted a national web-based survey of pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiological oncologists who are members of Korean Association for Lung Cancer (N = 183). Almost all respondents agreed that LDCT screening increases early detection (100%), improves survival (95.1%), and gives a good smoking cessation counseling opportunity (88.6%). Most were concerned about its high false positive results (79.8%) and the subsequent negative effects. Less than half were concerned about radiation hazard (37.2%). Overall, most (89.1%) believed that the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. Most (79.2%) stated that they proactively recommend LDCT screening to those who are eligible for the current guidelines, but the screening propensity varied considerably. The majority (77.6%) agreed with the idea of NLCSP and its beneficial effect, but had concerns about the quality control of CT devices (74.9%), quality assurance of radiologic interpretation (63.3%), poor access to LDCT (56.3%), and difficulties in selecting eligible population using self-report history (66.7%). Most (79.2%) thought that program need to be funded by a specialized fund rather than by the National Health Insurance. The opinions on the level of copayment for screening varied. Our findings would be an important source for health policy decision when considering for NLCSP in Korea.