Shared Decision-making and Lung Cancer Screening: Let's Get the Conversation Started

Primary care outreach and decision counseling for lung cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening rates are very low despite a level B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013 and clear evidence that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening reimbursement. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an SDM intervention on lung cancer screening in primary care.

METHODS

The study design was a single-arm clinical trial design. The intervention included phone contact outside of a primary care visit and the use of the Decision Counseling Program ®, an online interactive decision aid focused on determining the factors which influence patients to screen or not screen, prioritizing those factors, and determining a decision preference score. The primary outcome was the completion of low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) 1 year after the SDM session compared in participants versus nonparticipants.

RESULTS

From six practices, there were 1359 potentially eligible patients in electronic medical record data, and 336 were reached to assess eligibility criteria. A total of 80 patients consented to be in the study, 64 completed a decision counseling session and 16 did not complete a session. Among the 64 people who agreed to have decision counseling, 45% had LDCT, higher than typically seen in routine clinical practice. Although not a comparable group, among the 16 people who declined decision counseling, none had LDCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision counseling is a promising intervention that might support SDM in the context of improving uptake of lung cancer screening in primary care. However, further, larger studies are needed.

Early Detection and Interception of Lung Cancer

Recent advances in lung cancer treatment have led to dramatic improvements in 5-year survival rates. And yet, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality, in large part, because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, when cure is no longer possible. Lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential for intercepting the disease at an earlier stage. Unfortunately, LCS has been poorly adopted in the United States, with less than 5% of eligible patients being screened nationally. This article will describe the data supporting LCS, the obstacles to LCS implementation, and the promising opportunities that lie ahead.

Participant factors associated with psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual-level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for full-text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre-registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre-post (n = 13), cross-sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed-methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio-economic group, not being married or co-habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non-significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation.

CONCLUSION(S)

Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed.

Exploring shared decision-making needs in lung cancer screening among high-risk groups and health care providers in China: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The intricate balance between the advantages and risks of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) impedes the utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS). Guiding shared decision-making (SDM) for well-informed choices regarding LCS is pivotal. There has been a notable increase in research related to SDM. However, these studies possess limitations. For example, they may ignore the identification of decision support and needs from the perspective of health care providers and high-risk groups. Additionally, these studies have not adequately addressed the complete SDM process, including pre-decisional needs, the decision-making process, and post-decision experiences. Furthermore, the East-West divide of SDM has been largely ignored. This study aimed to explore the decisional needs and support for shared decision-making for LCS among health care providers and high-risk groups in China.

METHODS

Informed by the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework, we conducted qualitative, face-to-face in-depth interviews to explore shared decision-making among 30 lung cancer high-risk individuals and 9 health care providers. Content analysis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 4 decisional needs that impair shared decision-making: (1) LCS knowledge deficit; (2) inadequate supportive resources; (3) shared decision-making conceptual bias; and (4) delicate doctor-patient bonds. We identified 3 decision supports: (1) providing information throughout the LCS process; (2) providing shared decision-making decision coaching; and (3) providing decision tools.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers valuable insights into the decisional needs and support required to undergo LCS among high-risk individuals and perspectives from health care providers. Future studies should aim to design interventions that enhance the quality of shared decision-making by offering LCS information, decision tools for LCS, and decision coaching for shared decision-making (e.g., through community nurses). Simultaneously, it is crucial to assess individuals' needs for effective deliberation to prevent conflicts and regrets after arriving at a decision.

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation.

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Inadequate Uptake of USPSTF-Recommended Low Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening

In 2023, Journal of Primary Care and Community Health published the results of 4 outstanding studies in which investigators aimed to explore and improve clinician and eligible individuals' knowledge of the rationale for lung cancer screening (LCS). Their results highlighted the underutilization of LCS, particularly for certain high risk populations, and the continued disparities in screening seen between groups of eligible individuals. Here, key findings from those 2023 Journal of Primary Care and Community Health reports, along with salient findings of other recent LCS reports, are discussed. The bases for the United States Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) LCS recommendations, barriers primary care providers face, the perspective of eligible individuals, importance of shared decision-making (SDM) and disparities between groups in LCS are reviewed along with potential strategies to ensure that more eligible individuals are offered LCS.

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.

Unstructured Data Are Superior to Structured Data for Eliciting Quantitative Smoking History From the Electronic Health Record

PURPOSE

Develop a method for extracting smoking status and quantitative smoking history from clinician notes to facilitate cohort identification for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scanning for early detection of lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sample of 4,615 adult patients were randomly selected from the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Critical Care (MIMIC-III) database. The structured data were obtained by queries of the diagnosis tables using the International Classification of Diseases codes in use at that time. Unstructured data were drawn from clinician notes via natural language processing (NLP) using named entity recognition and our clinical data processing and extraction algorithms to identify two main clinical criteria for each smoking patient: (1) pack years smoked and (2) time from quit date (if applicable). A subset of 10% of the patient charts were manually reviewed for accuracy and precision.

RESULTS

The structured data revealed 575 (12.5%) ever smokers (current plus past use). None of these patients had quantification of their smoking history, and 4,040 (87.5%) had no smoking information in the diagnosis tables; consequently, a cohort of patients eligible for LDCT could not be determined. Review of the physician notes by NLP disclosed 1,930 (41.8%) ever smokers of whom 537 were active smokers and 1,299 former smokers, and in 94 cases, it could not be determined if they were active or former smokers. A total of 1365 patients (29.6%) had no smoking data recorded. When the smoking and the age criteria for LDCT were applied to this group, 276 were found to be eligible for LDCT using the USPSTF criteria. As determined by clinician review, our F-score for identifying patients eligible for LDCT was 0.88.

CONCLUSION

Unstructured data, obtained by NLP, can accurately identify a precise cohort that meets the USPSTF guidelines for LDCT.

Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility on NCI-Designated Cancer Center Websites

Online lung cancer screening assessments empower patients to learn about their risk for lung cancer and eligibility for screening. However, it is unknown whether these online assessments provide tailored recommendations that are consistent with national guidelines and include information to prepare patients for shared decision-making (SDM) consultations with their healthcare provider. In November 2019, we reviewed 71 NCI-Designated Cancer Center websites to identify US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening eligibility and evidence-based features of shared decision-making (SDM). Only 11% of the websites included an online lung cancer screening assessment. Most assessments included tailored recommendations for screening eligibility based on USPSTF guidelines. Assessments designed to support SDM included both potential benefits and harms of undergoing lung cancer screening. Nearly all assessments directed adults to discuss the results with their healthcare provider and reinforced the importance of living a tobacco-free lifestyle. Online lung cancer screening assessments have the potential to put patients in control of knowledge about their lung cancer risk and screening eligibility. While nearly all assessments recommend patients to speak with their healthcare provider about their risk for lung cancer, patients may require more support to initiate and navigate SDM conversations with their providers.

Protocol of an iterative qualitative study to develop a molecular testing decision aid for shared decision-making in patients with lung cancer after surgery

INTRODUCTION

Although molecular testing is crucial for many patients with lung cancer, the decision to carry out molecular testing is not easy to make in actual clinical scenarios. Using a specific decision aid (DA) to conduct shared decision-making (SDM) may help ameliorate this problem. However, no DA currently exists for lung cancer molecular testing (DA_LCMT). We aim to develop an evidence-based, iteratively refined DA, which may facilitate SDM and improve the quality of SDM.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

After considering the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, International Patient Decision Aid Standards and Food and Drug Administration guidance about methods to identify what is important to patients, semistructured interviews with qualitative research methods will be used to generate the decision-making needs of patients with lung cancer diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma by intraoperative frozen pathological sections. Input will be provided by patients and other stakeholders, including thoracic surgeons, nurses, hospital administrators, molecular testing company staff and insurance company staff. Then, a modified Delphi method will be used to develop the DA_LCMT V.1.0 (DA_LCMT 1.0). Structured interviews with qualitative research methods will be used in the cognitive debriefing (alpha tests) and field testing (beta tests) to revise and improve the DA_LCMT from version 1.0 to the final version, version 3.0. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the baseline characteristics of the patients and other stakeholders. Qualitative data will be analysed using the three steps of grounded theory: generate a codebook, update the codebook and create a comprehensive list of related items.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics Committee for Medical Research and New Medical Technology of Sichuan Cancer Hospital approved this study. This protocol is based on the latest version 1.0, dated 31 October 2021. The study was also approved by the Ethics Committees of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Zigong First People's Hospital and Jiangyou People's Hospital. The results of this study will be presented at medical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05191485.

Primary Care Physician Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) supports lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for patients who undergo shared decision-making (SDM) about LCS. Unfortunately, SDM and LCS rates are low in primary care, and, as a result, the potential benefits of LCS are not being realized. The research team interviewed 16 primary care physicians in a large urban medical center (7 in Family and Community Medicine and 9 in Internal Medicine) on their views of SDM and LCS. Interview audio-recordings were transcribed. Coders analyzed the interview transcripts independently using direct content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. Results of interview analyses show that physicians were aware of LCS but believed that they and their patients would benefit from receiving more information about screening guidelines. Physicians knew about SDM and felt that SDM performance could help to identify issues that are important to patients and may affect their receptivity to LCS. However, many physicians expressed concerns about the time required for SDM and completing SDM about LCS when other issues need to be addressed. They also acknowledged the challenge of engaging patients, especially those with low health literacy, in SDM. In practice, some physicians reported instead of engaging eligible patients in SDM, they simply encourage them to screen. Importantly, most physicians said that they would like to receive training in SDM. Findings from this study indicate that primary care physicians support the dissemination of information about LCS and understand the importance of SDM. Physicians also feel that performing SDM in routine care is challenging but are receptive to additional training in SDM. Health systems should take steps to support SDM and LCS performance in primary care.

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.

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.

Outreach to primary care patients in lung cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial

Current guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS), but rates are low. The current study evaluated strategies to increase LCS. This study was a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of patient outreach and shared decision making (SDM) about LCS among patients in four primary care practices. Patients 50 to 80 years of age and at high risk for lung cancer were randomized to Outreach Contact plus Decision Counseling (OC-DC, n = 314), Outreach Contact alone (OC, n = 314), or usual care (UC, n = 1748). LCS was significantly higher in the combined OC/OC-DC group versus UC controls (5.5% vs. 1.8%; hazard ratio, HR = 3.28; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.98 to 5.41; p = 0.001). LCS was higher in the OC-DC group than in the OC group, although not significantly so (7% vs. 4%, respectively; HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.55; p = 0.123). LCS referral/scheduling was also significantly higher in the OC/OC-DC group compared to controls (11% v. 5%; odds ratio, OR = 2.02; p = 0.001). We observed a similar trend for appointment keeping, but the effect was not statistically significant (86% v. 76%; OR = 1.93; p = 0.351). Outreach contacts significantly increased LCS among primary care patients. Research is needed to assess the additional value of SDM on screening uptake.

Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening: A Physician Survey

Purpose

To describe barriers to lung cancer screening (LCS) among family medicine and general internal medicine primary care physicians (PCPs) and assess the association of barriers with discussion and referral for screening.

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Subjects and Settings

Random sample of primary care physicians (PCPs) in California.

Measures

PCP practices for discussion and referral for LCS and ratings of LCS barriers.

Analysis

We performed exploratory factor analysis to identify four barrier constructs: (1) Physician Visit-Level Barriers to screening referral; (2) Physician System and Evidence Barriers; (3) Patient Cost Barrier; and (4) Other Patient Barriers. We then performed multivariable logistic regression adjusted for physician and practice characteristics to assess the association between the physician-reported barriers and whether PCPs discussed or referred for LCS.

Results

368 physicians responded (response rate 42%). Most worked in large metropolitan areas (80%) and large health systems (59%). After adjusting for physician and practice characteristics, we found that physician-reporting of System and Evidence Barriers was associated with lower odds of discussion or referral for LDCT (aOR .18, 95% CI 0.09–0.37), while physician-reported Visit-Level Barriers were associated with increased odds discussion or referral (aOR 2.65, 95% CI 1.30–5.04).

Conclusions

While physicians reported numerous barriers to LCS, we found that barriers were differentially associated with discussion or referral for screening. As new LCS guidelines broaden screening eligibility, it is critical to address these barriers to achieve higher rates of evidence-based LCS.

Blood-Based Biomarker Panel for Personalized Lung Cancer Risk Assessment

PURPOSE

To investigate whether a panel of circulating protein biomarkers would improve risk assessment for lung cancer screening in combination with a risk model on the basis of participant characteristics.

METHODS

A blinded validation study was performed using prostate lung colorectal ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial data and biospecimens to evaluate the performance of a four-marker protein panel (4MP) consisting of the precursor form of surfactant protein B, cancer antigen 125, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cytokeratin-19 fragment in combination with a lung cancer risk prediction model (PLCOm2012) compared with current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening criteria. The 4MP was assayed in 1,299 sera collected preceding lung cancer diagnosis and 8,709 noncase sera.

RESULTS

The 4MP alone yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.82) for case sera collected within 1-year preceding diagnosis and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.76) among the entire specimen set. The combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.88) for case sera collected within 1 year preceding diagnosis. The benefit of the 4MP in the combined model resulted from improvement in sensitivity at high specificity. Compared with the USPSTF2021 criteria, the combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model exhibited statistically significant improvements in sensitivity and specificity. Among PLCO participants with ≥ 10 smoking pack-years, the 4MP + PLCOm2012 model would have identified for annual screening 9.2% more lung cancer cases and would have reduced referral by 13.7% among noncases compared with USPSTF2021 criteria.

CONCLUSION

A blood-based biomarker panel in combination with PLCOm2012 significantly improves lung cancer risk assessment for lung cancer screening.

Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in a National Commercially Insured Population: Estimating an Episode of Care

OBJECTIVE

Consequences of lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest CT in clinical settings, including procedures, costs, and complications, are incompletely understood. We evaluated downstream invasive procedures after LCS, total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of these procedures, and correlates of procedural rates and costs.

METHODS

Using the Clinformatics Data Mart, we retrospectively included patients between ages 55 and 79 years receiving LCS between 2015 and 2017. The types and frequency of downstream invasive procedures (including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, surgery, and cytology) were described. Treating the LCS examination and downstream procedures as a single LCS episode, we described the per-episode total costs (insurance reimbursement + OOP costs of LCS and downstream procedures) and OOP costs. Correlates of costs were determined using linear and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 6,268 patients received at least one low-dose chest CT; 462 patients (7.4%) received at least one procedure within 12 months after LCS (needle biopsy 69.0%, cytology 23.6%, bronchoscopy 18.6%, surgery 23.8%). Women and patients ≥65 years were more likely to receive a downstream procedure. Ninety-three patients (20.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer after LCS. The total cost of managing this population of lung screeners was $5,060,511.04, with an average per-episode total cost of $740.06. The aggregate OOP costs to this population of lung screeners was $427,069.74, with an average per-episode OOP cost of $62.46.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of invasive procedures after LCS in a commercially insured population exceeded those of clinical trials. Considering LCS and associated downstream procedures as an episode of care results in modest OOP cost.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening on lung cancer surgical volume: The urgent need in health workforce education and training

This study aimed to investigate the time trend variation in the surgical volume and prognostic outcome of patients with lung cancer after the gradual prolonged implementation of a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening program.Using the hospital-based cancer registry data on number of patients with lung cancer and deaths from 2008 to 2017, we conducted a retrospective study using a hospital-based cohort to investigate the relationship between changes in lung cancer surgical volume, the proportion of lung-sparing surgery, and prolonged prognostic outcomes after the gradual implementation of the LDCT lung cancer screening program in recent years.From 2008 to 2017, 3251 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer according to the hospital-based cancer registry. The 5-year mortality rate decreased gradually from 83.54% to 69.44% between 2008 and 2017. The volume of total lung cancer surgical procedures and proportion of lung-sparing surgery performed gradually increased significantly from 2008 to 2017, especially from 2014 to 2017 after implementation of a large volume of LDCT lung cancer screening examinations. In conclusion, our real-world data suggest that there will be an increase in cases of operable early-stage lung cancers, which in turn will increase the surgical volume and proportion of lung-sparing surgery, after the gradual implementation of the LDCT lung cancer screening program in recent years. These findings suggest the importance of a successful national policy regarding LDCT screening programs, regulation of shortage of thoracic surgeons, thoracic radiologist workforce training positions, and education programs.

What is the effect of a decision aid on knowledge, values and preferences for lung cancer screening? An online pre-post study

OBJECTIVE

To examine if a decision aid improves knowledge of lung cancer screening benefits and harms and which benefits and harms are most valued.

DESIGN

Pre-post study.

SETTING

Online.

PARTICIPANTS

219 current or former (quit within the previous 15 years) smokers ages 55-80 with at least 30 pack-years of smoking.

INTERVENTION

Lung cancer screening video decision aid.

MAIN MEASURES

Screening knowledge tested by 10 pre-post questions and value of benefits and harms (reducing chance of death from lung cancer, risk of being diagnosed, false positives, biopsies, complications of biopsies and out-of-pocket costs) assessed through rating (1-5 scale) and ranking (top three ranked).

RESULTS

Mean age was 64.7±6.1, 42.5% were male, 75.4% white, 48.4% married, 28.9% with less than a college degree and 67.6% with income <US$50 000. Knowledge improved postdecision aid (pre 2.8±1.8 vs post 5.8±2.3, diff +3.0, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.3; p<0.001). For values, reducing the chance of death from lung cancer was rated and ranked highest overall (rating 4.3±1.0; 59.4% ranked first). Among harms, avoiding complications (3.7±1.3) and out-of-pocket costs (3.7±1.2) rated highest. Thirty-four per cent ranked one of four harms highest: avoiding costs 13.2%, false positives 7.3%, biopsies 7.3%, complications 5.9%. Screening intent was balanced (1-4 scale; 1-not likely 21.0%, 4-very likely 26.9%). Those 'not likely' to screen had greater improvement in pre-post knowledge scores and more frequently ranked a harm first than those 'very likely' to screen (pre-post diff:+3.5 vs +2.6, diff +0.9; 95% CI 0.1 to 1.8; p=0.023; one of four harms ranked first: 28.4% vs 11.3%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our decision aid increased lung cancer screening knowledge among a diverse sample of screen-eligible respondents. Although a majority valued 'reducing the chance of death from lung cancer' highest, a substantial proportion identified harms as most important. Knowledge improvement and ranking harms highest were associated with lower intention to screen.

Physician survey regarding updated PCV13 vaccine recommendations for adults ≥65 years

BACKGROUND

In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended discontinuing the routine use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) among adults aged ≥65 years and instead recommended PCV13 be used based on shared clinical decision making (SCDM).

OBJECTIVES

We wanted to assess among primary care physicians (1) knowledge and attitudes regarding the new SCDM PCV13 recommendation and (2) how the new recommendation will affect their likelihood of recommending PCV13 to adults aged ≥65 years.

DESIGN

This was done by mail and internet-based survey, which was conducted October 2019 through January 2020. The study was carried out on a nationally representative sample of general internists (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs).

RESULTS

The response rate was 64% (617/968, GIM 57%, FP 71%). Only 41% of respondents were aware of the SCDM PCV13 recommendation in adults aged ≥65 years; 76% agreed (37% "Strongly," 39% "Somewhat") that their patients aged ≥65 years will get confused by having a SCDM recommendation for PCV13 and a routine recommendation for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23); 60% agreed (18% "Strongly," 42% "Somewhat") that they were unsure of what points to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation with an adult aged ≥65 years about receiving PCV13. Just over 50% reported they would be less likely to recommend PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years as a result of the new recommendation, but 42% reported that their recommendation for PCV13 would not change.

CONCLUSIONS

Word of the new ACIP recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years needs to be further disseminated. Investigation into why some physicians do not plan to change their recommendations is warranted.

The radiologist's role in lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is still the deadliest cancer in men and women worldwide. This high mortality is related to diagnosis in advanced stages, when curative treatment is no longer an option. Large randomized controlled trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (CT) can detect lung cancers at earlier stages and reduce lung cancer-specific mortality. The recent publication of the significant reduction of cancer-related mortality by 26% in the Dutch-Belgian NELSON LCS trial has increased the likelihood that implementation of LCS in Europe will move forward. Radiologists are important stakeholders in numerous aspects of the LCS pathway. Their role goes beyond nodule detection and nodule management. Being part of a multidisciplinary team, radiologists are key players in numerous aspects of implementation of a high quality LCS program. In this non-systematic review we discuss the multifaceted role of radiologists in LCS.

Provision of Smoking Cessation Resources in the Context of In-Person Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective at reducing mortality for high-risk smokers. Mortality benefits go beyond early cancer detection, because shared decision-making (SDM) may present a "teachable moment" to reinforce cessation and provide resources.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How well is smoking cessation performed during LCS SDM encounters, and what patient and provider characteristics are associated with smoking cessation assistance?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of current smokers participating in initial LCS SDM through a multisite program in Seattle, Washington, between 2015-2018. The LCS tracking database and electronic health record were reviewed for demographics, comorbidity data, and clinical encounter information. The primary outcome was provision of a smoking cessation resource, defined as referral to cessation resources, recommendation for nicotine replacement, or prescription for cessation medication. Participant and provider factor associations with the outcome were evaluated using χ² testing and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most of the 423 study participants were men (70%), with a median age of 61 (IQR, 58-66) years and median of 50 (41-72) pack-years of smoking. Only 26% of encounters had documentation consistent with SDM. Thirty-nine percent of participants received at least one smoking cessation resource, and only 5% received both counseling referrals and medication. In a multivariable model, the provision of any smoking cessation resource was half as likely in participants with higher levels of comorbidity (Charlson Index >2; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81), and half as likely if the ordering provider was not the patient's PCP or their specialist (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96).

INTERPRETATION

Overall provision of smoking cessation resources was moderate during SDM encounters for LCS, and lower in patients with more comorbidities and when not performed by the patient's PCP or specialist. Interventions are needed to improve smoking cessation counseling and resource utilization at the time of LCS encounters.

Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening: A Review

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Certain groups are at increased risk of developing lung cancer and experience greater morbidity and mortality than the general population. Lung cancer screening provides an opportunity to detect lung cancer at an early stage when surgical intervention can be curative; however, current screening guidelines may overlook vulnerable populations with disproportionate lung cancer burden. This review aims to characterize disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility, as well as access to lung cancer screening, focusing on underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities and high-risk populations, such as individuals with human immunodeficiency virus. We also explore potential system- and patient-level barriers that may influence smoking patterns and healthcare access. Improving access to high-quality health care with a focus on smoking cessation is essential to reduce the burden of lung cancer experienced by vulnerable populations.

Implementation of Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening Among the Privately Insured Nonelderly

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires a written order of shared decision making (SDM) visit in its coverage policy for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS). With screening eligibility starting at age 55, private insurance plans will likely adopt this coverage policy. This study examined the implementation of SDM in the context of LCS among the privately insured. Methods. We constructed two study cohorts from MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database 2016-2017: a LDCT cohort who received LDCT for LCS and an SDM cohort who had an LCS-related SDM visit. For the LDCT cohort, we examined the trend and factors associated with the receipt of SDM within 3 months prior to LDCT. For the SDM cohort, we studied the trend and factors associated with LDCT within 3 months after an SDM visit. Results. For privately insured adults aged <64, 93% (19,681/21,084) of the LDCT cohort did not have a billing claim indicating SDM, although the uptake of SDM increased from 3.1% in 1Q2016 to 8.2% in 4Q2017 (P < 0.0001). For the SDM cohort, 46% (948/2048) did not have a claim for an LDCT for lung cancer screening in the 3 months after the SDM visit; this percentage increased from 29.5% in 1Q2016 to 61.8% in 3Q2017 (P < 0.0001). Limitations. Findings cannot be generalized to other nonelderly adults without private insurance. Additionally, the rate of SDM identified from claims may be underreported. Conclusions. We found a growing but low uptake of SDM among privately insured individuals who underwent LDCT. The higher rate of LDCT in the SDM cohort than the rate reported in national studies emphasized the importance of patient awareness.

Lung Screening Benefits and Challenges: A Review of The Data and Outline for Implementation

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all cancer-related deaths. Annual computed tomographic lung cancer screening (CTLS) detects lung cancer at earlier stages and reduces lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals. Many medical organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual CTLS in high-risk populations. However, fewer than 5% of individuals worldwide at high risk for lung cancer have undergone screening. In large part, this is owing to delayed implementation of CTLS in many countries throughout the world. Factors contributing to low uptake in countries with longstanding CTLS endorsement, such as the United States, include lack of patient and clinician awareness of current recommendations in favor of CTLS and clinician concerns about CTLS-related radiation exposure, false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and cost. This review of the literature serves to address these concerns by evaluating the potential risks and benefits of CTLS. Review of key components of a lung screening program, along with an updated shared decision aid, provides guidance for program development and optimization. Review of studies evaluating the population considered "high-risk" is included as this may affect future guidelines within the United States and other countries considering lung screening implementation.

The challenges of implementing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries

Lung cancer accounts for an alarming human and economic burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recent landmark trials from high-income countries (HICs) by demonstrating that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening effectively reduces lung cancer mortality have engendered enthusiasm for this approach. Here we examine the effectiveness and affordability of LDCT screening from the viewpoint of LMICs. We consider resource-restricted perspectives and discuss implementation challenges and strategies to enhance the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in LMICs.

Screening for Lung Cancer

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography provides an opportunity to save lives by early detection of the deadliest cancer in the United States. Uptake of lung cancer screening has been quite low but may be improving. Clinician and patient education, integration of lung cancer screening protocols into electronic medical records, support for shared decision making and tobacco cessation, and improved communication between referral centers and clinicians are all important areas for improvement for lung cancer screening to reach its potential in improving morbidity and mortality from lung cancer.

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically.

RESULTS

We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality.

INTERPRETATION

Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.

Factors influencing lung cancer screening completion following participation in shared decision-making: A retrospective study in a U.S. academic health system

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) between patients and designated health professionals is recommended by several professional organizations prior to lung cancer screening by low dose CT (LDCT). This study seeks to identify factors, including characteristics of patients and referring clinicians, that influence LDCT screening completion following participation in SDM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of n = 171 patients eligible for LDCT screening and who participated in SDM between 2016 and 2017 in one of two sites in Prisma Health, an academic health care delivery system in South Carolina. Patient characteristics included age, sex, race, body mass index, marital status, insurance, smoking status and history, family history of lung cancer, SDM site, and distance to screening site. Characteristics of referred clinicians included age, sex, race, specialty, years of practice, education, and residency. Descriptive statistics and multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to compare effects of patient and referring clinician characteristics on LDCT completion.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients (89%) completed LDCT screening after participation in SDM. SDM site (p = 0.02), longer distances to the screening site (p = 0.03), referrals from internal medicine clinicians (p = 0.03), and referrals from younger clinicians (p = 0.01) and from those with less years of experience (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with a lower likelihood of screening completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors significantly associated with screening completion were identified. This information can assist with development of interventions to improve communication and decision-making between patients, clinicians, and SDM health professionals, and inform design of targeted decision aids embedded into SDM procedures.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Uptake, Outcomes, and Costs in the United States: Challenges With Existing Data and Recommendations for Improvement

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported substantial reduction in lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals screened annually with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT). As a result, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a B recommendation for annual LDCT in high-risk individuals, which requires private insurers to cover it without cost-sharing. The Medicare program also covers LDCT for high-risk beneficiaries without cost-sharing. However, the NLST findings may not be generalizable to the community setting because of differences in patients, providers, and practices participating in the NLST. Thus, examining uptake of LDCT screening in community practice is critical, as is evaluating the immediate and downstream outcomes of screening, including false-positive scans, follow-up examinations and adverse events, costs, stage of disease at diagnosis, and survival. This commentary presents an overview of the landscape of the data resources currently available to evaluate the uptake, outcomes, and costs of LDCT screening in the United States. We describe the strengths and limitations of existing data sources, including administrative databases, surveys, and registries. Thereafter, we provide recommendations for improving the data infrastructure pertaining to three overarching research areas: receipt of guideline-consistent screening and follow-up, weighing benefits and harms of screening, and costs of screening.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

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