Adherence to Follow-up Testing Recommendations in US Veterans Screened for Lung Cancer, 2015-2019

Disparities across the continuum of lung cancer care: a review of recent literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Health disparities have long been noted in lung cancer incidence and survival and persist across the continuum of care. Understanding the gaps in care that arise from disparities in lung cancer risk, screening, treatment, and survivorship are essential to guiding efforts to achieve equitable care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature continues to show that Black people, women, and people who experience socioeconomic disadvantage or live in rural areas experience disparities throughout the spectrum of lung cancer care. Contributing factors include structural racism, lower education level and health literacy, insurance type, healthcare facility accessibility, inhaled carcinogen exposure, and unmet social needs. Promising strategies to improve lung cancer care equity include policy to reduce exposure to tobacco smoke and harmful pollutants, more inclusive lung cancer screening eligibility criteria, improved access and patient navigation in lung cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment, more deliberate offering of appropriate surgical and medical treatments, and improved availability of survivorship and palliative care.

SUMMARY

Given ongoing disparities in lung cancer care, research to determine best practices for narrowing these gaps and to guide policy change are an essential focus of future lung cancer research.

Thoracic high resolution computed tomography evaluation of imaging abnormalities of 108 lung cancer patients with different pulmonary function

PURPOSE

Preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) belong to lung function injury. PRISm is a precursor to COPD. We compared and evaluated the different basic information, imaging findings and survival curves of 108 lung cancer patients with different pulmonary function based on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed on 108 lung cancer patients who did pulmonary function test (PFT) and thoracic HRCT. The basic information was evaluated: gender, age, body mass index (BMI), smoke, smoking index (SI). The following pulmonary function findings were evaluated: forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC ratio. The following computed tomography (CT) findings were evaluated: appearance (bronchiectasis, pneumonectasis, atelectasis, ground-glass opacities [GGO], interstitial inflammation, thickened bronchial wall), diameter (aortic diameter, pulmonary artery diameter, MPAD/AD ratio, inferior vena cava diameter [IVCD]), tumor (volume, classification, distribution, staging [I, II, III, IV]). Mortality rates were calculated and survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Compared with normal pulmonary function group, PRISm group and COPD group were predominantly male, older, smoked more, poorer lung function and had shorter survival time after diagnosis. There were more abnormal images in PRISm group and COPD group than in normal lung function group (N-C group). In PRISm group and COPD group, lung cancer was found late, and the tumor volume was larger, mainly central squamous carcinoma. But the opposite was true for the N-C group. The PRISm group and COPD group had significant poor survival probability compared with the normal lung function group.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable differences regarding basic information, pulmonary function, imaging findings and survival curves are found between normal lung function group and lung function injury group. Lung function injury (PRISm and COPD) should be taken into account in future lung cancer screening studies.

An alternating-intervention pilot trial on the impact of an informational handout on patient-reported outcomes and follow-up after lung cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either: 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention).

INTERVENTION

A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible component of a multi-level intervention to address knowledge and follow-up for LCS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05265897.

Association of patient and health care organization factors with incidental nodule guidelines adherence: A multi-system observational study

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations are increasingly developing systems to ensure patients with pulmonary nodules receive guideline-adherent care. Our goal was to determine patient and organization factors that are associated with radiologist adherence as well as clinician and patient concordance to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines for incidental pulmonary nodule follow-up.

MATERIALS

Trained researchers abstracted data from the electronic health record from two Veterans Affairs health care systems for patients with incidental pulmonary nodules as identified by interpreting radiologists from 2008 to 2016.

METHODS

We classified radiology reports and patient follow-up into two categories. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was the agreement between the radiologist's recommendation in the computed tomography report and the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines. Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance was agreement between patient follow-up and the guidelines. We calculated multivariable-adjusted predicted probabilities for factors associated with Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence and Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance.

RESULTS

Among 3150 patients, 69% of radiologist recommendations were adherent to 2005 Fleischner guidelines, 4% were more aggressive, and 27% recommended less aggressive follow-up. Overall, only 48% of patients underwent follow-up concordant with 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines, 37% had less aggressive follow-up, and 15% had more aggressive follow-up. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was associated with Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance with evidence for effect modification by health care system.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and patients seem to follow radiologists' recommendations but often do not obtain concordant follow-up, likely due to downstream differential processes in each health care system. Health care organizations need to develop comprehensive and rigorous tools to ensure high levels of appropriate follow-up for patients with pulmonary nodules.

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection.

DESIGN

Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities.

APPROACH

We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations.

KEY RESULTS

PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

RadioGraphics Update: The 10 Pillars of Lung Cancer Screening-Rationale and Logistics of a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Editor's Note.-RadioGraphics Update articles supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics. These updates, written by at least one author of the previous article, provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes.

What Goes into Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening? Factors Associated with Clinician Judgments of Suitability for Screening

Rationale: Achieving the net benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS) depends on optimizing patient selection. Objective: To identify factors associated with clinician assessments that a patient was unlikely to benefit from LCS ("LCS-inappropriate") because of comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients assessed for LCS at 30 Veterans Health Administration facilities from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2021. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with clinicians' designations of LCS inappropriateness (primary outcome), accounting for 3-year predicted probability (i.e., competing risk) of non-lung cancer death. Measurements and Main Results: Among 38,487 LCS-eligible patients, 1,671 (4.3%) were deemed LCS-inappropriate by clinicians, whereas 4,383 (11.4%) had an estimated 3-year competing risk of non-lung cancer death greater than 20%. Patients with higher competing risks of non-lung cancer death were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate (odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-3.05). Older patients (ages 75-80; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78) and those with interstitial lung disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.59) were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate than would be explained by competing risk of non-lung cancer death, whereas patients currently smoking (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) were less likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate, suggesting that clinicians over- or underweighted these factors. The probability of being deemed LCS-inappropriate varied from 0.4% to 74%, depending on the clinician making the assessment (median OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.89-3.25). Conclusion: Concerningly, the likelihood that a patient is deemed LCS-inappropriate is more strongly associated with the clinician making the assessment than with patient characteristics. Patient selection may be optimized by providing decision support to help clinicians assess net LCS benefit.

Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening in a Centralized Academic Program

BACKGROUND

Adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) protocols is critical for achieving mortality reductions. However, adherence rates, particularly for recommended annual screening among patients with low-risk findings, are often sub-optimal. We evaluated annual LCS adherence for patients with low-risk findings participating in a centralized screening program at a tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of a centralized lung cancer screening program launched in July 2018. We performed electronic medical review of 337 patients who underwent low-dose CT (LDCT) screening before February 1, 2021 (to ensure ≥ 15 months follow up) and had a low-risk Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2. Captured data included patient characteristics (smoking history, Fagerstrom score, environmental exposures, lung cancer risk score), LDCT imaging dates, and Lung-RADS results. The primary outcome measure was adherence to annual screening. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with adherence.

RESULTS

Overall, 337 patients had an initial Lung-RADS result of 1 (n = 189) or 2 (n = 148). Among this cohort, 139 (73.5%) of Lung-RADS 1 and 111 (75.0%) of Lung-RADS 2 patients completed the annual repeat LDCT within 15 months, respectively. The only patient characteristic associated with adherence was having Medicaid coverage; compared to having private insurance, Medicaid patients were less adherent (adjusted OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.15-0.92). No other patient characteristic was associated with adherence.

CONCLUSION

Our centralized screening program achieved a high initial annual adherence rate. Although LCS has first-dollar insurance coverage, other socioeconomic concerns may present barriers to annual screening for Medicaid recipients.

Evaluation of Socioeconomic Disparities in Follow-Up Completion for Incidental Pulmonary Nodules

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between census tract-level measures of social vulnerability and residential segregation and incidental pulmonary nodule (IPN) follow-up.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with IPNs ≥6 mm in size or multiple subsolid or ground-glass IPNs <6 mm (with nonoptional follow-up recommendations) diagnosed between January 1, 2018, and December 30, 2019, at a large urban tertiary center and followed for ≥2 years. Geographic sociodemographic context was characterized by the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the index of concentration at the extremes (ICE), categorized in quartiles. Multivariable binomial regression models were used, with a primary outcome of inappropriate IPN follow-up (late or no follow-up). Models were also stratified by nodule risk.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 2,492 patients (mean age, 65.6 ± 12.6 years; 1,361 women). Top-quartile SVI patients were more likely to have inappropriate follow-up (risk ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.36) compared with the bottom quartile; risk was also elevated in top-quartile SVI subcategories of socioeconomic status (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.34), Minority status and language (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48), housing and transportation (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26), and ICE (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Furthermore, top-quartile ICE was associated with greater risk for inappropriate follow-up among high-risk versus lower risk IPNs (RR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.18-1.50] versus 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.25]), respectively; P for interaction = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

Local social vulnerability and residential segregation are associated with inappropriate IPN follow-up and may inform policy or interventions tailored for neighborhoods.

Effects of trauma history on cancer-related screening, diagnosis, and treatment

Trauma has substantial effects on human health and is recognised as a potential barrier to seeking or receiving cancer care. The evidence that exists regarding the effect of trauma on seeking cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment and the gaps therein can define this emerging research area and guide the development of interventions intended to improve the cancer care continuum for trauma survivors. This Review summarises current literature on the effects of trauma history on screening, diagnosis, and treatment among adult patients at risk for or diagnosed with cancer. We discuss a complex relationship between trauma history and seeking cancer-related services, the nature of which is influenced by the necessity of care, perceived or measured health status, and potential triggers associated with the similarity of cancer care to the original trauma. Collaborative scientific investigations by multidisciplinary teams are needed to generate further clinical evidence and develop mitigation strategies to provide trauma-informed cancer care for this patient population.

Lung cancer screening adherence among people living with and without HIV: An analysis of an integrated health system in Florida, United States (2012-2021)

Although lung cancer is a leading cause of death among people living with HIV (PLWH), limited research exists characterizing real-world lung cancer screening adherence among PLWH. Our objective was to compare low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) adherence among PLWH to those without HIV treated at one integrated health system. Using the University of Florida's Health Integrated Data Repository (01/01/2012-10/31/2021), we identified PLWH with at least one LDCT procedure, using Current Procedural Terminology codes(S8032/G0297/71271). Lung cancer screening adherence was defined as a second LDCT based on the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS®). Lung-RADS categories were extracted from radiology reports using a natural language processing system. PLWH were matched with 4 randomly selected HIV-negative patients based on (+/- 1 year) age, Lung-RADS category, and calendar year. Seventy-three PLWH and 292 matched HIV-negative adults with at least one LDCT were identified. PLWH were more likely to be male (66% vs.52%,p < 0.04), non-Hispanic Black (53% vs.23%,p < 0.001), and live in an area of high poverty (45% vs.31%,p < 0.001). PLWH were more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer after first LDCT (8% vs.0%,p < 0.001). Seventeen percent of HIV-negative and 12% of PLWH were adherent to LDCT screenings. Only 25% of PLWH diagnosed with category 4A were adherent compared to 44% of HIV-negative. On multivariable analyses, those with older age (66-80 vs.50-64 years) and with either Medicaid, charity-based, or other government insurance (vs. Medicare) were less likely to be adherent to LDCT screenings. PLWH may have poorer adherence to LDCT compared to their HIV-negative counterparts.

Disparities Across the Continuum of Lung Cancer Care

Despite the overall decline in lung cancer incidence and mortality, minority populations continue to bear a higher disease burden. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and disproportionately impacts minority populations. Social determinants of health-including low-socioeconomic status, lack of health insurance, and access to health care- disproportionately impact racial, ethnic, and rural populations resulting in direct consequences on lung cancer disparities.

Timely adherence to follow-up after high-risk lung cancer screenings

OBJECTIVE

To achieve the lung cancer screening (LCS) mortality benefit in clinical trials, timely, real-world follow-up of abnormal test results is necessary. Presently, annual LCS rates are lower than in trials, and adherence to follow-up after suspicious findings has not been well studied. This study examined timely adherence to follow-up recommendations after positive low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings.

METHODS

This retrospective study included individuals from two academic primary care practices in New York City who met United States Preventative Services Task Force LCS eligibility and had a positive LDCT scan between 2013 and 2020. They were recommended for shorter interval follow-up repeat computed tomography (CT), CT biopsy, or positron emission tomography/CT. Adherence was completion of the prescribed imaging by 15 days after the recommended 7-, 30-, and 90-day follow-up and by 30 days after the 180-day recommended follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 106 individuals with a positive LDCT scan, 64 (60%) were adherent to follow-up recommendations. Adherence was 72%, 63%, and 42% for recommended follow-ups of 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. Being male was a predictor of a lower adherence rate. Among 23 individuals newly diagnosed with lung cancer after a positive LDCT scan, 83% were adherent to follow-up testing and 82% of cancers were Stage 1A or limited stage.

CONCLUSIONS

There was variable adherence to the LCS follow-up recommendations despite positive screening CT, suggesting that even in a well-established screening program there may not be an efficient, systematic approach for follow-up. The delays in repeat testing potentially undermine the benefits of early detection.

The aggregate value of cancer screenings in the United States: full potential value and value considering adherence

BACKGROUND

Although cancer mortality has been decreasing since 1991, many cancers are still not detected until later stages with poorer outcomes. Screening for early-stage cancer can save lives because treatments are generally more effective at earlier than later stages of disease. Evidence of the aggregate benefits of guideline-recommended single-site cancer screenings has been limited. This article assesses the benefits in terms of life-years gained and associated value from major cancer screening technologies in the United States.

METHODS

A mathematical model was built to estimate the aggregate benefits of screenings for breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer over time since the start of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. For each type, the full potential benefits under perfect adherence and the benefits considering reported adherence rates were estimated. The effectiveness of each screening technology was abstracted from published literature on the life-years gained per screened individual. The number of individuals eligible for screening per year was estimated using US Census data matched to the USPSTF recommendations, which changed over time. Adherence rates to screening protocols were based on the National Health Interview Survey results with extrapolation.

RESULTS

Since initial USPSTF recommendations, up to 417 million people were eligible for cancer screening. Assuming perfect adherence to screening recommendations, the life-years gained from screenings are estimated to be 15.5-21.3 million (2.2-4.9, 1.4-3.6, 11.4-12.3, and 0.5 million for breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer, respectively). At reported adherence rates, combined screening has saved 12.2-16.2 million life-years since the introduction of USPSTF recommendations, ~ 75% of potential with perfect adherence. These benefits translate into a value of $8.2-$11.3 trillion at full potential and $6.5-$8.6 trillion considering current adherence. Therefore, single-site screening could have saved an additional 3.2-5.1 million life-years, equating to $1.7-$2.7 trillion, with perfect adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although gaps persist between the full potential benefit and benefits considering adherence, existing cancer screening technologies have offered significant value to the US population. Technologies and policy interventions that can improve adherence and/or expand the number of cancer types tested will provide significantly more value and save significantly more patient lives.

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 2015 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial data.

RESULTS

Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred.

INTERPRETATION

This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer.

Lung Cancer Screening Among U.S. Military Veterans by Health Status and Race and Ethnicity, 2017-2020: A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study

Introduction

Veterans are at high risk for lung cancer and are an important group for lung cancer screening. Previous research suggests that lung cancer screening may not be reaching healthier and/or non-White individuals, who stand to benefit most from lung cancer screening. We sought to test whether lung cancer screening is associated with poor health and/or race and ethnicity among veterans.

Methods

This cross-sectional, population-based study included veterans eligible for lung cancer screening (aged 55-79 years, ≥30 pack-year smoking history, current smokers or quit within 15 years, no previous lung cancer) in the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. Exposures were (1) poor health, defined as fair/poor health status and difficulty walking or climbing stairs, aligning with eligibility criteria for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial, and (2) race/ethnicity. The outcome was a receipt of lung cancer screening. All variables were self-reported.

Results

Of 3,376 lung cancer screening-eligible veterans representing an underlying population of 866,000 individuals, 20.3% (95% CI=17.3, 23.6) had poor health, and 13.7% (95% CI=10.6, 17.5) identified as non-White. Poor health was strongly associated with lung cancer screening (adjusted RR=1.64, 95% CI=1.06, 2.27); one third of veterans screened for lung cancer would not qualify for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial in terms of health. Marked racial disparities were observed among veterans: after adjustment, non-White veterans were 67% less likely to report lung cancer screening than White veterans (adjusted RR=0.33, 95% CI=0.11, 0.66).

Conclusions

Lung cancer screening is correlated with poorer health and White race/ethnicity among veterans, which may undermine its population-level effectiveness. These results highlight the need to promote lung cancer screening, especially for healthier and/or non-White veterans, an important group of Americans for lung cancer screening.

Sybil: A Validated Deep Learning Model to Predict Future Lung Cancer Risk From a Single Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography

PURPOSE

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is effective, although most eligible people are not being screened. Tools that provide personalized future cancer risk assessment could focus approaches toward those most likely to benefit. We hypothesized that a deep learning model assessing the entire volumetric LDCT data could be built to predict individual risk without requiring additional demographic or clinical data.

METHODS

We developed a model called Sybil using LDCTs from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Sybil requires only one LDCT and does not require clinical data or radiologist annotations; it can run in real time in the background on a radiology reading station. Sybil was validated on three independent data sets: a heldout set of 6,282 LDCTs from NLST participants, 8,821 LDCTs from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), and 12,280 LDCTs from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH, which included people with a range of smoking history including nonsmokers).

RESULTS

Sybil achieved area under the receiver-operator curves for lung cancer prediction at 1 year of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.95) on NLST, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.90) on MGH, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00) on CGMH external validation sets. Concordance indices over 6 years were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.78), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.85), and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.86) for NLST, MGH, and CGMH, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sybil can accurately predict an individual's future lung cancer risk from a single LDCT scan to further enable personalized screening. Future study is required to understand Sybil's clinical applications. Our model and annotations are publicly available.

[Media: see text].

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs).

METHODS

This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution.

RESULTS

The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Cancer-related knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors among Hispanic/Latino residents of Indiana

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the leading cause of death for Hispanics in the USA. Screening and prevention reduce cancer morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

This study administered a cross-sectional web-based survey to self-identified Hispanic residents in the state of Indiana to assess their cancer-related knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as to identify what factors might be associated with cancer screening and prevention. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to compare associations and logistic regression used to develop both univariate and multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 1520 surveys were completed, median age of respondents was 53, 52% identified as men, 50.9% completed the survey in Spanish, and 60.4% identified the USA as their country of birth. Most were not able to accurately identify ages to begin screening for breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, and there were significant differences in cancer knowledge by education level. US-born individuals with higher income and education more often believed they were likely to develop cancer and worry about getting cancer. Sixty eight percent of respondents were up-to-date with colorectal, 44% with breast, and 61% with cervical cancer screening. Multivariate models showed that higher education, lack of fatalism, older age, lower household income, and unmarried status were associated with cervical cancer screening adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a Hispanic population in the state of Indiana, factors associated with cervical cancer screening adherence were similar to the general population, with the exceptions of income and marital status. Younger Hispanic individuals were more likely to be adherent with breast and colorectal cancer screening, and given the higher incidence of cancer among older individuals, these results should guide future research and targeted outreach.

Lung cancer screening

Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.

Interventions to improve lung cancer screening among racially and ethnically minoritized groups: A scoping review

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer related mortality among high-risk people who smoke cigarettes and has been endorsed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) since 2013. However, adoption of LCS has been limited, and disparities in LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups have become apparent. While recommendations to improve disparities in LCS have been made, there is a lack of information on how these recommendations have been implemented and their relative effectiveness in improving screening disparities. This scoping review addresses this knowledge gap by examining interventions that have been implemented to improve LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups in the United States. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Scopus (via Elsevier), for articles from the period 1 January 2010 through 22 October 2021 was completed. Out of 17,045 references screened, only 11 studies describing an intervention to improve disparities in LCS were identified, underscoring the dearth of data on established interventions. The interventions discussed could be categorized into three groups -- patient level (n = 3), clinic/institution level (n = 3), and community level (n = 5) interventions. Of those studies reporting effectiveness data (n = 8), there was substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and their relative effectiveness. We found that interventions which streamlined the LCS process at the level of a single clinic or institution were the most effective in improving LCS. Community-level interventions that focused on engagement and education had the greatest potential to target racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Our study underscores the need for more robust research on addressing barriers to LCS by identifying effective patient, clinic, and community-level interventions to improve LCS disparities and the need for potential standardization of intervention effectiveness outcomes.

[Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) in Radiology: Strengths, Weaknesses and Improvement]

In 2019, the American College of Radiology announced Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) 1.1 to reduce lung cancer false positivity compared to that of Lung-RADS 1.0 for effective national lung cancer screening, and in December 2022, announced the new Lung-RADS 1.1, Lung-RADS^® 2022 improvement. The Lung-RADS^® 2022 measures the nodule size to the first decimal place compared to that of the Lung-RADS 1.0, to category 2 until the juxtapleural nodule size is < 10 mm, increases the size criterion of the ground glass nodule to 30 mm in category 2, and changes categories 4B and 4X to extremely suspicious. The category was divided according to the airway nodules location and shape or wall thickness of atypical pulmonary cysts. Herein, to help radiologists understand the Lung-RADS^® 2022, this review will describe its advantages, disadvantages, and future improvements.

Impact of Low-dose Chest CT Screening on the Association Between Rurality and Lung Cancer Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer mortality is higher among rural United States populations compared with nonrural ones. Little is known about screening low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) outcomes in rural settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined all patients (n=1805) who underwent screening LDCT in a prospective registry from March 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, in a majority-rural health care system. We assessed the proportion of early-stage lung cancers (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I-II) diagnosed among LDCT-screened patients, and analyzed overall survival after early-stage lung cancer diagnosis according to residency location.

RESULTS

The screening cohort had a median age of 63 and median 40-pack-year smoking history; 62.4% had a rural residence, 51.2% were female, and 62.7% completed only 1 LDCT scan. Thirty-eight patients were diagnosed with lung cancer (2.1% of the cohort), of which 65.8% were early-stage. On multivariable analysis, rural (vs nonrural) residency was not associated with a lung cancer diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio 1.59; 95% CI, 0.74-3.40; P =0.24). At a median follow-up of 37.1 months (range, 3.3 to 67.2 months), 88.2% of rural versus 87.5% of nonrural patients with screen-diagnosed early-stage lung cancer were alive ( P =0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

In a majority-rural United States population undergoing LDCT, most screen-detected lung cancers were early-stage. There were no significant differences observed between rural and nonrural patients in lung cancer diagnosis rate or early-stage lung cancer survival. Increased implementation of LDCT might blunt the historical association between rural United States populations and worse lung cancer outcomes.

Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care After a Positive Lung Cancer Screening Examination

Importance

Maximizing benefits of lung cancer screening requires timely follow-up after a positive screening test. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommends testing and follow-up timing based on the screening result.

Objective

To determine rates of and factors associated with recommended follow-up after a positive lung cancer screening examination by Lung-RADS category.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study of lung cancer screening examinations performed from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2020, with follow-up through July 31, 2021, was conducted at 5 academic and community lung cancer screening sites in North Carolina. Participants included 685 adults with a positive screening examination, Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Statistical analysis was performed from December 2020 to March 2022.

Exposures

Individual age, race, sex, smoking exposure, year of lung cancer screening examination, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, referring clinician specialty, rural or urban residence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adherence, defined as receipt of recommended follow-up test or procedure after the positive screen per ACR Lung-RADS timeframes: 6 months for Lung-RADS 3 and 3 months for Lung-RADS 4A. For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, adherence was defined as follow-up care within 4 weeks, as ACR Lung-RADS does not specify a timeframe.

Results

Among the 685 individuals included in this study who underwent lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, 416 (60.7%) were aged at least 65 years, 123 (18.0%) were Black, 562 (82.0%) were White, and 352 (51.4%) were male. Overall adherence to recommended follow-up was 42.6% (292 of 685) and varied by Lung-RADS category: Lung-RADS 3 = 30.0% (109 of 363), Lung-RADS 4A = 49.5% (96 of 194), Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 68.0% (87 of 128). Extending the follow-up time increased adherence: Lung-RADS 3 = 68.6% (249 of 363) within 9 months, Lung-RADS 4A = 77.3% (150 of 194) within 5 months, and Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 80.5% (103 of 128) within 62 days. For Lung-RADS 3, recommended follow-up was less likely among those currently smoking vs those who quit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78). In Lung-RADS 4A, recommended follow-up was less likely in Black individuals vs White individuals (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, recommended follow-up was more likely in female individuals vs male individuals (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.09-7.28) and less likely in those currently smoking vs those who quit (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, adherence to recommended follow-up after a positive screening examination was low but improved among nodules with a higher suspicion of cancer and after extending the follow-up timeline. However, the association of extending the follow-up time of screen-detected nodules with outcomes at the population level, outside of a clinical trial, is unknown. These findings suggest that studies to understand why recommended follow-up is lower in Black individuals, male individuals, and individuals currently smoking are needed to develop strategies to improve adherence.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-Up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Rationale: Black patients receive recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up care less frequently than White patients, but it is unknown if this racial disparity persists across both decentralized and centralized LCS programs. Objectives: To determine adherence to American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations among individuals undergoing LCS at either decentralized or centralized programs and to evaluate the association of race with LCS adherence. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients receiving LCS at five heterogeneous U.S. healthcare systems. We calculated adherence to annual LCS among patients with a negative baseline screen (Lung-RADS 1 or 2) and recommended follow-up care among those with a positive baseline screen (Lung-RADS 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) stratified by type of LCS program and evaluated the association between race and adherence using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Results: Of the 6,134 total individuals receiving LCS, 5,142 (83.8%) had negative baseline screens, and 992 (16.2%) had positive baseline screens. Adherence to both annual LCS (34.8% vs. 76.1%; P < 0.001) and recommended follow-up care (63.9% vs. 74.6%; P < 0.001) was lower at decentralized compared with centralized programs. Among individuals with negative baseline screens, a racial disparity in adherence was observed only at decentralized screening programs (interaction term, P < 0.001). At decentralized programs, Black race was associated with 27% reduced adherence to annual LCS (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.84), whereas at centralized programs, no effect by race was observed (aRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In contrast, among those with positive baseline screens, there was no significant difference by race for adherence to recommended follow-up care by type of LCS program (decentralized aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; centralized aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; interaction term, P = 0.176). Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of individuals screened for lung cancer, adherence to both annual LCS and recommended follow-up care was greater at centralized screening programs. Black patients were less likely to receive annual LCS than White patients at decentralized compared with centralized LCS programs. Our results highlight the need for further study of healthcare system-level mechanisms to optimize longitudinal LCS care.

Invasive Procedures and Associated Complications After Initial Lung Cancer Screening in a National Cohort of Veterans

BACKGROUND

Little is known about rates of invasive procedures and associated complications after lung cancer screening (LCS) in nontrial settings.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the frequency of invasive procedures, complication rates, and factors associated with complications in a national sample of veterans screened for lung cancer?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of veterans who underwent LCS in any Veterans Health Administration (VA) facility between 2013 and 2019 and identified veterans who underwent invasive procedures within 10 months of initial LCS. The primary outcome was presence of a complication within 10 days after an invasive procedure. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine patient- and facility-level factors associated with complications resulting from an invasive procedure.

RESULTS

Our cohort of 82,641 veterans who underwent LCS was older, more racially diverse, and had more comorbidities than National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants. Overall, 1,741 veterans (2.1%) underwent an invasive procedure after initial screening, including 856 (42.3%) bronchoscopies, 490 (24.2%) transthoracic needle biopsies, and 423 (20.9%) thoracic surgeries. Among veterans who underwent procedures, 151 (8.7%) experienced a major complication (eg, respiratory failure, prolonged hospitalization) and an additional 203 (11.7%) experienced an intermediate complication (eg, pneumothorax, pleural effusion). Veterans who underwent thoracic surgery (OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 5.48-10.81), underwent multiple nonsurgical procedures (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), or carried a dementia diagnosis (OR, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.79-8.52) were more likely to experience complications. Invasive procedures were performed less often than in the NLST (2.1% vs 4.2%), but veterans were more likely to experience complications after each type of procedure.

INTERPRETATION

These findings may reflect a higher threshold to perform procedures in veteran populations with multiple comorbidities and higher risks of complications. Future work should focus on optimizing the identification of patients whose chance of benefit likely outweighs the complication risks.

Factors Associated With Declining Lung Cancer Screening After Discussion With a Physician in a Cohort of US Veterans

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is underused in the US, particularly in underserved populations, and little is known about factors associated with declining LCS. Guidelines call for shared decision-making when LCS is offered to ensure informed, patient-centered decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how frequently veterans decline LCS and examine factors associated with declining LCS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study included LCS-eligible US veterans who were offered LCS between January 1, 2013, and February 1, 2021, by a physician at 1 of 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities that routinely used electronic health record clinical reminders documenting LCS eligibility and veterans' decisions to accept or decline LCS. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse or Medicare claims files from the VA Information Resource Center.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was documentation, in clinical reminders, that veterans declined LCS after a discussion with a physician. Logistic regression analyses with physicians and facilities as random effects were used to assess factors associated with declining LCS compared with agreeing to LCS.

RESULTS

Of 43 257 LCS-eligible veterans who were offered LCS (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [5.8] years), 95.9% were male, 84.2% were White, and 37.1% lived in a rural zip code; 32.0% declined screening. Veterans were less likely to decline LCS if they were younger (age 55-59 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; age 60-64 years: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), were Black (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), were Hispanic (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), did not have to make co-payments (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99), or had more frequent VHA health care utilization (outpatient: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.72; emergency department: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Veterans were more likely to decline LCS if they were older (age 70-74 years: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.37; age 75-80 years: OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.73-2.17), lived farther from a VHA screening facility (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08), had spent more days in long-term care (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), or had specific cardiovascular or mental health conditions (congestive heart failure: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39; stroke: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; schizophrenia: OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.19). The physician and facility offering LCS accounted for 19% and 36% of the variation in declining LCS, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, older veterans with serious comorbidities were more likely to decline LCS and Black and Hispanic veterans were more likely to accept it. Variation in LCS decisions was accounted for more by the facility and physician offering LCS than by patient factors. These findings suggest that shared decision-making conversations in which patients play a central role in guiding care may enhance patient-centered care and address disparities in LCS.

Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up

Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%-18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% v >90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings - reflecting "real world" challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.

Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Exploring the effects of racial and socioeconomic factors on timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in Baltimore Veterans

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the effect of racial and socioeconomic factors on the timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in a single-center Veterans Affair Medical Center (VAMC) pulmonary nodule clinic.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective review of all patients seen at the Baltimore VAMC pulmonary nodule clinic between 2013 and 2019 to identify key demographic factors, measures of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, cancer staging and histopathologic information, and time elapsed between diagnosis and treatment. We excluded patients with pulmonary nodules undergoing active surveillance, prior history of lung cancer, metastases of a different primary origin, insufficient followup, or who had received care outside the VHA system.

RESULTS

Median times to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer were 28 and 73 days. There were no statistically significant differences in overall timeliness of diagnosis and treatment when stratified by race or measures of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found no differences in timeliness of lung cancer care by race and socioeconomic status within the system. Despite general adherence to national standards in timeliness of care, there continues to be a need for improvements in the operational workflows to reduce time to diagnosis and treatment for all Veterans.

Lung cancer screening at the VA: Past, present and future

Lung cancer is responsible for more deaths annually in the United States than breast, prostate and colon cancers combined. Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients through early detection. The incidence of lung cancer is higher in the veteran population compared to the general population due, in part, to the prevalence of tobacco use. Early detection of lung cancer is therefore an important goal of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the United States. The following will review previous and current initiatives undertaken by the VHA to implement and expand access to lung cancer screening and will highlight target areas of interest to improve uptake and quality of lung cancer screening. Through these initiatives and programs, the VHA aims to provide high quality and equitable access to lung cancer screening for all Veterans that incorporates research that will improve outcomes and potentially inform and optimize the practice of Lung cancer screening across the United States.

Contemporary Concise Review 2021: Pulmonary nodules from detection to intervention

The US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) has updated screening criteria by expanding age range and reducing smoking history required for eligibility; the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) data have shown that PLCOM2012 performs better for eligibility than USPSTF criteria. Screening adherence is low (4%-6% of potential eligible candidates in the United States) and depends upon multiple system and patient/candidate-related factors. Smoking cessation in lung cancer improves survival (past prospective trial data, updated meta-analysis data); smoking cessation is an essential component of lung cancer screening. Circulating biomarkers are emerging to optimize screening and early diagnosis. COVID-19 continues to affect lung cancer treatment and screening through delays and disruptions; specific operational challenges need to be met. Over 70% of suspected malignant lesions develop in the periphery of the lungs. Bronchoscopic navigational techniques have been steadily improving to allow greater accuracy with target lesion approximation and therefore diagnostic yield. Fibre-based imaging techniques provide real-time microscopic tumour visualization, with potential diagnostic benefits. With significant advances in peripheral lung cancer localization, bronchoscopically delivered ablative therapies are an emerging field in limited stage primary and oligometastatic disease. In advanced stage lung cancer, small-volume samples acquired through bronchoscopic techniques yield material of sufficient quantity and quality to support clinically relevant biomarker assessment.

HIGH RISK DISEASE AND POOR FOLLOWUP: THE IMPORTANCE OF RENAL MASS BIOPSY IN A COHORT OF VETERANS

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical utility of RMB in our multi-state system. Renal mass biopsy (RMB) is useful in the management of masses ≤ 4 cm (T1a), but evaluation of RMB in the uniquely vulnerable Veteran population is lacking.

METHODS

136 RMB in 130 patients performed between 06/2015 and 11/2020 were identified in this Quality Improvement analysis. Demographics, size, pathology, treatment, and biopsy complications were analyzed. Of 101 T1a masses, 89 were either diagnostic or not decompressed cysts and 77 met inclusion criteria for follow-up imaging compliance analysis.

RESULTS

The median age was 66 years. The diagnostic rate was 94.1% (128/136) for all masses and 94.1% (95/101) for T1a renal masses, with a complication rate of 2.2%. Among solid T1a masses, unexpectedly aggressive lesions (Fuhrman Grade 4, Type 2 papillary or sarcomatoid features) were identified in 8/89 (9.0%). 57 (64%) patients were treated with cryoablation or surgery and 32 (36%) patients elected active surveillance (AS). A neoplastic finding (oncocytoma or RCC) was present in 16 patients choosing AS (50%) compared to 52 patients choosing treatment (91%). Compliance with NCCN-recommended imaging was 50% and 47% for AS and treatment groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this VA cohort, we found a significant incidence of high-risk lesions and poor compliance with follow-up imaging. Aggressive biopsy protocols with high consideration of treatment may be appropriate to limit risk in those lost to follow-up. Given that 9% of our small renal masses were highly aggressive, biopsy may be critical in the selection of AS candidates.

Lung Cancer Diagnosed Through Screening, Lung Nodule, and Neither Program: A Prospective Observational Study of the Detecting Early Lung Cancer (DELUGE) in the Mississippi Delta Cohort

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening saves lives, but implementation is challenging. We evaluated two approaches to early lung cancer detection-low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and program-based management of incidentally detected lung nodules.

METHODS

A prospective observational study enrolled patients in the early detection programs. For context, we compared them with patients managed in a Multidisciplinary Care Program. We compared clinical stage distribution, surgical resection rates, 3- and 5-year survival rates, and eligibility for LDCT screening of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

RESULTS

From 2015 to May 2021, 22,886 patients were enrolled: 5,659 in LDCT, 15,461 in Lung Nodule, and 1,766 in Multidisciplinary Care. Of 150, 698, and 1,010 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in the respective programs, 61%, 60%, and 44% were diagnosed at clinical stage I or II, whereas 19%, 20%, and 29% were stage IV (P = .0005); 47%, 42%, and 32% had curative-intent surgery (P < .0001); aggregate 3-year overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 73 to 88) versus 64% (60 to 68) versus 49% (46 to 53); 5-year overall survival rates were 76% (67 to 87) versus 60% (56 to 65) versus 44% (40 to 48), respectively. Only 46% of 1,858 patients with lung cancer would have been deemed eligible for LDCT by US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria, and 54% by 2021 criteria. Even if all eligible patients by USPSTF 2021 criteria had been enrolled into LDCT, the Nodule Program would have detected 20% of the stage I-II lung cancer in the entire cohort.

CONCLUSION

LDCT and Lung Nodule Programs are complementary, expanding access to early lung cancer detection and curative treatment to different-risk populations. Implementing Lung Nodule Programs may alleviate emerging disparities in access to early lung cancer detection.