Chest X-ray sensitivity and lung cancer outcomes: A retrospective observational study

14Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Chest X-ray (CXR) is the first-line investigation for lung cancer in many healthcare systems. An understanding of the consequences of falsenegative CXRs on time to diagnosis, stage, and survival is limited. Aim To determine the sensitivity of CXR for lung cancer and to compare stage at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, and survival between those with CXR that detected, or did not detect, lung cancer. Design and setting Retrospective observational study using routinely collected healthcare data. Method All patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust during 2008 2015 who had a GP-requested CXR in the year before diagnosis were categorised based on the result of the earliest CXR performed in that period. The sensitivity of CXR was calculated and analyses were performed with respect to time to diagnosis, survival, and stage at diagnosis. Results CXR was negative for 17.7% of patients (n = 376/2129). Median time from initial CXR to diagnosis was 43 days for those with a positive CXR and 204 days for those with a negative CXR. Of those with a positive CXR, 29.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 27.9% to 31.8%) were diagnosed at stage I or II, compared with 33.5% (95% CI = 28.8% to 38.6%) with a negative CXR. Conclusion GPs should consider lung cancer in patients with persistent symptoms even when CXR is negative. Despite longer duration to diagnosis for those with false-negative CXRs, there was no evidence of an adverse impact on stage at diagnosis or survival; however, this comparison is likely to be affected by confounding variables.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bradley, S. H., Bhartia, B. S., Callister, M. E., Hamilton, W. T., Hatton, N. L. F., Kennedy, M. P., … Neal, R. D. (2021). Chest X-ray sensitivity and lung cancer outcomes: A retrospective observational study. British Journal of General Practice, 71(712), E862–E868. https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.1099

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free