Likelihood of Lung Cancer Screening by Poor Health Status and Race and Ethnicity in US Adults, 2017 to 2020

Prediction-Augmented Shared Decision-Making and Lung Cancer Screening Uptake

Importance

Addressing poor uptake of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS) is critical, especially for those having the most to gain-high-benefit persons with high lung cancer risk and life expectancy more than 10 years.

Objective

To assess the association between LCS uptake and implementing a prediction-augmented shared decision-making (SDM) tool, which enables clinicians to identify persons predicted to be at high benefit and encourage LCS more strongly for these persons.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Quality improvement interrupted time series study at 6 Veterans Affairs sites that used a standard set of clinical reminders to prompt primary care clinicians and screening coordinators to engage in SDM for LCS-eligible persons. Participants were persons without a history of LCS who met LCS eligibility criteria at the time (aged 55-80 years, smoked ≥30 pack-years, and current smoking or quit <15 years ago) and were not documented to be an inappropriate candidate for LCS by a clinician during October 2017 through September 2019. Data were analyzed from September to November 2023.

Exposure

Decision support tool augmented by a prediction model that helps clinicians personalize SDM for LCS, tailoring the strength of screening encouragement according to predicted benefit.

Main outcome and measure

LCS uptake.

Results

In a cohort of 9904 individuals, the median (IQR) age was 64 (57-69) years; 9277 (94%) were male, 1537 (16%) were Black, 8159 (82%) were White, 5153 (52%) were predicted to be at intermediate (preference-sensitive) benefit and 4751 (48%) at high benefit, and 1084 (11%) received screening during the study period. Following implementation of the tool, higher rates of LCS uptake were observed overall along with an increase in benefit-based LCS uptake (higher screening uptake among persons anticipated to be at high benefit compared with those at intermediate benefit; primary analysis). Mean (SD) predicted probability of getting screened for a high-benefit person was 24.8% (15.5%) vs 15.8% (11.8%) for a person at intermediate benefit (mean absolute difference 9.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.6%-16.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Implementing a robust approach to personalized LCS, which integrates SDM, and a decision support tool augmented by a prediction model, are associated with improved uptake of LCS and may be particularly important for those most likely to benefit. These findings are timely given the ongoing poor rates of LCS uptake.

Review of Interventions That Improve Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: A Cataloging of Strategies That Have Been Shown to Work (or Not)

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to decrease mortality from lung cancer by 20%. Yet, more than a decade since LCS was established as an evidence-based practice, < 20% of the eligible population in the United States has been screened. This review focuses on critically appraising interventions that have been designed to increase the initial uptake of LCS, including how they address known barriers to LCS and their effectiveness in overcoming these barriers.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Studies were categorized based on the primary barriers that they addressed: (1) identifying eligible patients (including enhancing awareness through smoking history collection, outreach, and education), (2) shared decision-making-related interventions, and (3) patient navigation interventions. Four of the studies included multicomponent interventions, which often included patient navigation as one of the components. Overall, the effectiveness of the studies reviewed at improving LCS uptake generally was modest and was limited by the multilevel barriers that need to be overcome. Multicomponent interventions generally were more effective at improving LCS uptake, but most studies still had relatively low completion of screening.

SUMMARY

Improving uptake of LCS requires learning from prior interventions to design multilevel interventions that address barriers to LCS at key steps and identifying which components of these interventions are effective and generalizable.

Trends in smoking-attributable and smoking-unrelated lung cancer death rates in the United States, 1991-2018

BACKGROUND

In the United States, lung cancer death rates have been declining for decades, primarily as a result of pronounced decreases in cigarette smoking. It is unclear, however, whether there have been similar declines in mortality rates of lung cancer unrelated to smoking. We estimated trends in US lung cancer death rates attributable and not attributable to smoking from 1991 to 2018.

METHODS

The study included 30- to 79-year-olds in the National Health Interview Survey who were linked to the National Death Index, 1991-2014. Adjusted hazard ratios for smoking status and lung cancer death were estimated, and age-specific population attributable fractions were calculated. Annual population attributable fractions were multiplied by annual US national lung cancer mortality, partitioning rates into smoking-attributable and smoking-unrelated lung cancer deaths. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

During 1991-2018, the proportion of never smokers increased among both men (35.1%-54.6%) and women (54.0%-65.4%). Compared with those who had ever smoked, those who had never smoked had 86% lower risk (hazard ratio = 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12 to 0.16) of lung cancer death. The fraction of lung cancer deaths attributable to smoking decreased from 81.4% (95% CI = 78.9 to 81.4) to 74.7% (95% CI = 78.1 to 71.4). Smoking-attributable lung cancer death rates declined 2.7% per year (95% CI = ‒2.9% to ‒2.5%) and smoking-unrelated lung cancer death rates declined 1.8% per year (95% CI = ‒2.0% to ‒1.5%); these declines have accelerated in recent years.

CONCLUSIONS

An increasing proportion of lung cancer deaths are unrelated to smoking based on declines in smoking prevalence. Smoking-unrelated lung cancer death rates have declined, however, perhaps because of decreases in secondhand smoke and air pollution exposure as well as treatment improvements.

Artificial intelligence in coronary artery calcium score: rationale, different approaches, and outcomes

Almost 35 years after its introduction, coronary artery calcium score (CACS) not only survived technological advances but became one of the cornerstones of contemporary cardiovascular imaging. Its simplicity and quantitative nature established it as one of the most robust approaches for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk stratification in primary prevention and a powerful tool to guide therapeutic choices. Groundbreaking advances in computational models and computer power translated into a surge of artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches directly or indirectly linked to CACS analysis. This review aims to provide essential knowledge on the AI-based techniques currently applied to CACS, setting the stage for a holistic analysis of the use of these techniques in coronary artery calcium imaging. While the focus of the review will be detailing the evidence, strengths, and limitations of end-to-end CACS algorithms in electrocardiography-gated and non-gated scans, the current role of deep-learning image reconstructions, segmentation techniques, and combined applications such as simultaneous coronary artery calcium and pulmonary nodule segmentation, will also be discussed.

Lung cancer screening use among screening-eligible adults with disabilities

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) use among adults with disabilities has not been well characterized. We estimated the prevalence of LCS use by disability types and counts and investigated the association between disability counts and LCS utilization among LCS-eligible adults.

METHODS

We used cross-sectional data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Lung Cancer Screening Module. Based on the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for LCS, the sample included 4407 LCS-eligible adults, aged 55-79 years, with current or former (quit smoking in the past 15 years) tobacco use history of at least 30 pack-years. Disability types included limitations in hearing, vision, cognition, mobility, self-care, and independent living. We also categorized respondents by number of disabilities (no disability, 1 disability, 2 disabilities, 3+ disabilities). We utilized descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses to determine the association between disability counts and the receipt of LCS (yes/no) in the past 12 months.

RESULTS

In 2019, 16.4% of LCS-eligible adults were screened for lung cancer. Overall, 49.6% of participants had no disability, and 14.5% had >3 disabilities. Mobility was the most prevalent disability type (35.4%), followed by cognitive impairment (18.2%) and hearing (16.6%). LCS was more prevalent in adults with disability in self-care versus no disability in self-care (24.0% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.01), disability in independent living versus no disability in independent living (22.2% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.02), and cognitive impairment disability versus no cognitive impairment (22.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.03). The prevalence rates of LCS among groups of LCS-eligible adults with different disability counts were not significant (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of clinical guidelines on LCS among individuals with disabilities, some individuals with disabilities are being screened for lung cancer. Future research should address this knowledge gap to determine clinical benefit versus harm of LCS among those with disabilities.

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.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS.

METHODS

We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making.

RESULTS

Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

"We need to work towards it, whatever it takes."-participation factors in the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: the perspectives of key stakeholders

Background

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, targeted at those at high-risk, has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality and detect cancers at an early stage. Practical, attitudinal and demographic factors can inhibit screening participation in high-risk populations. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' views about barriers and enablers (determinants) to participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) in Australia.

Methods

Twenty-four focus groups (range 2-5 participants) were conducted in 2021 using the Zoom platform. Participants were 84 health professionals, researchers, policy makers and program managers of current screening programs. Focus groups consisted of a structured presentation with facilitated discussion lasting about 1 hour. The content was analysed thematically and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Screening determinants were identified across each stage of the proposed screening and assessment pathway. Challenges included participant factors such as encouraging participation for individuals at high-risk, whilst ensuring that access and equity issues were carefully considered in program design. The development of awareness campaigns that engaged LCS participants and health professionals, as well as streamlined referral processes for initial entry and follow-up, were strongly advocated for. Considering practical factors included the use of mobile vans in convenient locations.

Conclusions

Participants reported that LCS in Australia was acceptable and feasible. Participants identified a complex set of determinants across the proposed screening and assessment pathway. Strategies that enable the best chance for program success must be identified prior to implementation of a national LCS program.

Rates of Compliance in South Indian American Communities of Southern California Regarding Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown lower rates of cancer screening and high mortality rates among all Asian Americans than among non-Hispanic White populations. However, most of these studies often confound diverse Asian American subgroups with limited data on cancer screening for Indian Americans, with this group being particularly interesting because of their counterintuitive socioeconomic status. For this reason, the objective of this study is to evaluate knowledge of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cancer screening guidelines and compliance among South Indian Americans residing in Southern California.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study gathering community responses through an electronic survey. The survey reports knowledge of USPSTF screening guidelines and participant compliance rates. Rates were further compared to non-Hispanic White populations from official sources.

RESULTS

South Indian Americans residing in California had lower rates of compliance for colorectal, lung, and breast cancer screening when compared to that of non-Hispanic White populations in the same region, with the exception of cervical cancer screening rates.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the cultural characteristics of special populations, such as Indian Americans, can help communities adhere to more effective screening practices that can improve outcomes.

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.

Patient-Provider Discussion About Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Equitable Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Physician-patient discussions regarding lung cancer screening (LCS) are uncommon and its racial and ethnic disparities are under-investigated. We examined the racial and ethnic disparities in the trends and frequency of LCS discussion among the LCS-eligible United States (US) population.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2014 to 2020. LCS-eligible individuals were defined as adults aged 55 to 80 years old who have a current or former smoking history. We estimated the trends and frequency of LCS discussions and adjusted the probability of having an LCS discussion by racial and ethnic groups.

RESULTS

Among 2136 LCS-eligible participants (representing 22.7 million US adults), 12.9% (95% CI, 10.9%-15%) reported discussing LCS with their providers in the past year. The frequency of LCS discussion was lowest among non-Hispanic White participants (12.3%, 95% CI, 9.9%-14.7%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups (14.1% in Hispanic to 15.3% in non-Hispanic Black). A significant increase over time was only observed among non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1% in 2014 to 22.1% in 2020; P = .05) and non-Hispanic Whites (8.5% in 2014 to 14% in 2020; P = .02). In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black participants (14.6%, 95% CI, 12.3%-16.7%) had a significantly higher probability of LCS discussion than non-Hispanic Whites (12.1%, 95% CI, 11.4%-12.7%).

CONCLUSION

Patient-provider LCS discussion was uncommon in the LCS-eligible US population. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have LCS discussions than other racial and ethnic groups. There is a need for more research to clarify the discordance between LCS discussions and the actual screening uptake in this population.

Promoting lung cancer screening of high-risk patients by primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest of eligible patients remains low. Accordingly, augmentation of appropriate LCS referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) was sought.

METHODS

The quality improvement (QI) project was performed between April 2021 and June 2022. It incorporated patient education, shared decision-making (SDM) with PCPs, and tracking of initial LDCT completion. In each case, lag time (LT) to LCS and pack-years (PYs) were calculated from initial LCS eligibility. The cohort's scores were compared to national scores. Patient zip codes were used to create a geographic map of our cohort for comparison with public health data.

RESULTS

An immediate and sustained increase in weekly LCS referrals from PCPs was recorded. Of 337 initial referrals, 95% were men, consisting of 66.2% Black, 28.4% White, and 5.4% other. Mean PY was less for minorities (45.3 vs. 37.3 years; p = .0002) but mean LT was greater for Whites (7.9 vs. 6.2 years; p = .03). Twenty-five percent of veterans failed to report to their scheduled screening, and two declined referrals. Notably, most no-show patients lived in transit deserts. Furthermore, Lung-RADS scores 4B/4X were more than double the expected prevalence (p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

The PCPs in this study successfully augmented LCS referrals. A substantial proportion of these patients were no-shows, and our data suggest complex racial and socioeconomic factors as contributing variables. In addition, a higher-than-expected number of initial Lung-RADS scores 4B/4X were reported. A large, multisite QI project is warranted to address overcoming potential transportation barriers in high-risk patient populations.

Should we be screening for COPD? - looking through the lens of lung cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

In May 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force published their recommendation against screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asymptomatic adults. However, we argue the routine use of spirometry in both asymptomatic and symptomatic high-risk smokers has utility.

AREAS COVERED

We provide published and unpublished observations from a secondary analyses of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, including 18,463 high-risk current or former smokers who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline. According to history alone, 20% reported a prior diagnosis of 'COPD,' although only 11% (about one half), actually had airflow limitation (Diagnosed COPD) and 9% had Global Initiative for Obstructive Pulmonary Disease GOLD 0 Pre-COPD. Of the remaining 80% of 'asymptomatic' screening participants, 23% had airflow limitation (Screen-detected COPD) and 13% had preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm). This means 45% of this high-risk cohort were reclassified by spirometry, and together with comorbid disease, identified subgroups where lung cancer screening efficacy could be optimized by between 2-6 fold.

EXPERT OPINION

Our preliminary findings suggest lung cancer screening outcomes vary according to 'new' COPD-related spirometric-defined subgroups and that screening spirometry, together with comorbid disease, identifies those for whom lung cancer screening is mostly beneficial or potentially harmful.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: What We Have Learned in Two Decades of ITALUNG and What Is Yet to Be Addressed

The ITALUNG trial started in 2004 and compared lung cancer (LC) and other-causes mortality in 55-69 years-aged smokers and ex-smokers who were randomized to four annual chest low-dose CT (LDCT) or usual care. ITALUNG showed a lower LC and cardiovascular mortality in the screened subjects after 13 years of follow-up, especially in women, and produced many ancillary studies. They included recruitment results of a population-based mimicking approach, development of software for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and lung nodules volumetry, LDCT assessment of pulmonary emphysema and coronary artery calcifications (CAC) and their relevance to long-term mortality, results of a smoking-cessation intervention, assessment of the radiations dose associated with screening LDCT, and the results of biomarkers assays. Moreover, ITALUNG data indicated that screen-detected LCs are mostly already present at baseline LDCT, can present as lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces, and can be multiple. However, several issues of LC screening are still unaddressed. They include the annual vs. biennial pace of LDCT, choice between opportunistic or population-based recruitment. and between uni or multi-centre screening, implementation of CAD-assisted reading, containment of false positive and negative LDCT results, incorporation of emphysema. and CAC quantification in models of personalized LC and mortality risk, validation of ultra-LDCT acquisitions, optimization of the smoking-cessation intervention. and prospective validation of the biomarkers.

Racial Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Among Veterans, 2013 to 2021

Importance

Racial disparities in lung cancer screening (LCS) are often ascribed to barriers such as cost, insurance status, access to care, and transportation. Because these barriers are minimized within the Veterans Affairs system, there is a question of whether similar racial disparities exist within a Veterans Affairs health care system in North Carolina.

Objectives

To examine whether racial disparities in completing LCS after referral exist at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System (DVAHCS) and, if so, what factors are associated with screening completion.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study assessed veterans referred to LCS between July 1, 2013, and August 31, 2021, at the DVAHCS. All included veterans self-identified as White or Black and met the US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria as of January 1, 2021. Participants who died within 15 months of consultation or who were screened before consultation were excluded.

Exposures

Self-reported race.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Screening completion was defined as completing computed tomography for LCS. The associations among screening completion, race, and demographic and socioeconomic risk factors were assessed using logistic regression models.

Results

A total of 4562 veterans (mean [SD] age, 65.4 [5.7] years; 4296 [94.2%] male; 1766 [38.7%] Black and 2796 [61.3%] White) were referred for LCS. Of all veterans referred, 1692 (37.1%) ultimately completed screening; 2707 (59.3%) never connected with the LCS program after referral and an informational mailer or telephone call, indicating a critical point in the LCS process. Screening rates were substantially lower among Black compared with White veterans (538 [30.5%] vs 1154 [41.3%]), with Black veterans having 0.66 times lower odds (95% CI, 0.54-0.80) of screening completion after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found that after referral for initial LCS via a centralized program, Black veterans had 34% lower odds of LCS screening completion compared with White veterans, a disparity that persisted even after accounting for numerous demographic and socioeconomic factors. A critical point in the screening process was when veterans must connect with the screening program after referral. These findings may be used to design, implement, and evaluate interventions to improve LCS rates among Black veterans.

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.

Opportunities for Achieving the Cancer Moonshot Goal of a 50% Reduction in Cancer Mortality by 2047

On February 2, 2022, President Biden and First Lady Dr. Biden reignited the Cancer Moonshot, setting a new goal to reduce age-standardized cancer mortality rates by at least 50% over the next 25 years in the United States. We estimated trends in U.S. cancer mortality during 2000 to 2019 for all cancers and the six leading types (lung, colorectum, pancreas, breast, prostate, liver). Cancer death rates overall declined by 1.4% per year from 2000 to 2015, accelerating to 2.3% per year during 2016 to 2019, driven by strong declines in lung cancer mortality (-4.7%/year, 2014 to 2019). Recent declines in colorectal (-2.0%/year, 2010-2019) and breast cancer death rates (-1.2%/year, 2013-2019) also contributed. However, trends for other cancer types were less promising. To achieve the Moonshot goal, progress against lung, colorectal, and breast cancer deaths needs to be maintained and/or accelerated, and new strategies for prostate, liver, pancreatic, and other cancers are needed. We reviewed opportunities to prevent, detect, and treat these common cancers that could further reduce population-level cancer death rates and also reduce disparities.

SIGNIFICANCE

We reviewed opportunities to prevent, detect, and treat common cancers, and show that to achieve the Moonshot goal, progress against lung, colorectal, and breast cancer deaths needs to be maintained and/or accelerated, and new strategies for prostate, liver, pancreatic, and other cancers are needed. See related commentary by Bertagnolli et al., p. 1049. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1027.

The role of lung cancer risk and comorbidity in lung cancer screening use

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, benefits and harms of screening vary among eligible adults. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether LCS is more commonly used among populations most likely to benefit, namely adults with high lung cancer risk and low comorbidity. In this cohort study of patients eligible for LCS, we used data from the electronic health record to evaluate the relationship between lung cancer risk, comorbidity, and receipt of LCS. We also evaluated use of diagnostic chest CT. Analyses used a nonparametric test for trend across quartiles of lung cancer risk and comorbidity. The study sample included 551 LCS-eligible adults who were followed for a mean 2.9 years (SD 1.6 years). A cumulative 190 (34 %) received at least 1 LCS, and 141 (26 %) had a diagnostic chest CT. Receipt of LCS increased across quartiles of lung cancer risk (5 per 100 person years in the lowest quartile vs 13 per 100 person-years in the highest, p < 0.001 for test of trend). LCS receipt decreased across increasing quartiles of comorbidity (14 vs 8 per 100 person-years, p = 0.008). Diagnostic CT was more common in among patient with higher levels of comorbidity (15 vs 5 per 100 person-years, p < 0.001). In conclusion, lung cancer screening was more commonly used in patients with greater lung cancer risk and lower comorbidity. Results suggest that both patient characteristics and use of diagnostic imaging may shape current patterns of LCS use.

Early Diagnosis and Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the most significant cause of cancer death, accounting for about 20% of all cancer-related mortality. A significant reason for this is delayed diagnosis, either due to lack of symptoms in early-stage disease or presentation with non-specific symptoms common with a broad range of alternative diagnoses. More is needed in terms of increasing public awareness, providing adequate healthcare professional education and implementing clinical pathways that improve the earlier diagnosis of symptomatic lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography screening of high-risk, asymptomatic populations has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, with focus now shifting towards how best to implement lung cancer screening on a wider scale in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner. For maximum benefit, efforts must be made to optimise uptake, especially among high-risk populations with significant socioeconomic deprivation, as well as successfully incorporate tobacco-dependency treatment. Quality assured programme management will be critical to minimising screening-related harms and adequately managing incidental findings. By undertaking the above, there can be optimism that lung cancer outcomes can be improved significantly in the near future.

Access to Care Limits Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in an Urban Safety Net Hospital

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) results in earlier detection of malignancy and decreases mortality but requires access to care to benefit. We assessed factors associated with timing of lung cancer diagnosis in the absence of systematic LCS in an urban safety net hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of patients with pathologic diagnosis and/or staging of lung cancer at our institution between 2015 and 2018. Patient socio-demographics, disease characteristics, factors associated with access to medical care, and time point and process by which the patient accessed care were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 223 patients were identified with median age of 63 years and 57.8% male predominance. Racial distribution was 22.9%, 20.2%, 17.1%, and 9.4% for Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic, respectively. Stage at diagnosis was 8.1%, 4.5%, 17.0%, and 60.5% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Medicaid (59.6%) and Medicare/Medicaid (17.1%) were the most common insurance types, while 16.1% had no insurance. A majority (54.3%) had no established primary care provider (PCP), and only 17.9% had an in-network PCP. Patients without PCPs were more likely to have diagnostic evaluation initiated from Emergency Department or Urgent Care settings (95.0% vs 50.1%, P < .01) and present with later stage disease (92.7% vs 77.8%, P < .01). Of the 83 patients that met age and smoking history LCS criteria, only 33.7% (12.6% of total) also had an in-network PCP.

CONCLUSION

Absence of established PCPs is associated with later stage presentation of lung cancer and may limit system- level benefits of LCS implementation.

Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?

Annual screening of lung cancer (LC) with chest low-dose computed tomography (CT) and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) with CT colonography every 5 years are recommended by the United States Prevention Service Task Force. We review epidemiological and pathological data on LC and CRC, and the features of screening chest low-dose CT and CT colonography comprising execution, reading, radiation exposure and harm, and the cost effectiveness of the two CT screening interventions. The possibility of combining chest low-dose CT and CT colonography examinations for double LC and CRC screening in a single CT appointment is then addressed. We demonstrate how this approach appears feasible and is already reasonable as an opportunistic screening intervention in 50–75-year-old subjects with smoking history and average CRC risk. In addition to the crucial role Computer Assisted Diagnosis systems play in decreasing the test reading times and the need to educate radiologists in screening chest LDCT and CT colonography, in view of a single CT appointment for double screening, the following uncertainties need to be solved: (1) the schedule of the screening CT; (2) the effectiveness of iterative reconstruction and deep learning algorithms affording an ultra-low-dose CT acquisition technique and (3) management of incidental findings. Resolving these issues will imply new cost-effectiveness analyses for LC screening with chest low dose CT and for CRC screening with CT colonography and, especially, for the double LC and CRC screening with a single-appointment CT.

Controversies and challenges in lung cancer screening

Two large randomized controlled trials have shown mortality benefit from lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk groups. Updated guidelines by the United State Preventative Service Task Force in 2020 will allow for inclusion of more patients who are at high risk of developing lung cancer and benefit from screening. As medical clinics and lung cancer screening programs around the country continue to work on perfecting the LCS workflow, it is important to understand some controversial issues surrounding LCS that should be addressed. In this article, we identify some of these issues, including false positive rates of low-dose CT, over-diagnosis, cost expenditure, LCS disparities in minorities, and utility of biomarkers. We hope to provide clarity, potential solutions, and future directions on how to address these controversies.

Investigation on the incidence and risk factors of lung cancer among Chinese hospital employees

Objective

In recent years, the lung cancer incidence has grown and the population is younger. We intend to find out the true detection rate of pulmonary nodules and the incidence of lung cancer in the population and search for the risk factors.

Method

Hospital employees ≥40 years old who underwent low‐dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening from January 2019 to March 2022 were selected to record CT‐imaging characteristics, pathology, staging, and questionnaires to investigate past history, smoking history, diet, mental health, etc. PM2.5 and radiation intake in radiation‐related occupation received monitoring in hospital.

Result

The detection rate of suspicious pulmonary nodules was 9.1% (233/2552), and the incidence rate of lung cancer (including adenocarcinoma in situ) was 4.0% (103/2552). Morbidity among doctors, nurses, technicians, administers, and logistics was no difference (p = 0.184), but higher in women than in men (4.7% vs 2.4% p = 0.002). The invasiveness increased with age and CT density of nodules (p = 0.018). The relationship between lung cancer morbidity and PM2.5 was not clear (p = 0.543); and no lung cancer has been found in employees related ionizing radiation.

Conclusion

The high screening rate has brought about a high incidence of lung cancer. At present, the risk factor analysis of lung cancer based on small samples cannot find the direct cause. Most of the ground glass opacity (GGO)s detected by LDCT screening are indolent, but there are also rapidly progressive lung cancer. A predictive model to identify active and indolent GGO is necessary.