Access to Lung Cancer Screening Programs in the United States

"We don't get that information right back to us unless it's a full-blown cancer": Challenges coordinating lung cancer screening across healthcare systems

OBJECTIVE

To examine how lung cancer screening (LCS) is coordinated across healthcare systems, specifically Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA settings.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

We conducted primary qualitative data collection in six VA medical centers with established LCS programs from November 2020 to November 2021.

STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 48 primary care providers, LCS program coordinators and directors, and pulmonologists. Thematic analysis examined spontaneously raised narratives related to initiating and coordinating LCS for Veterans screened in non-VA settings. We mapped coordination challenges to each step of the LCS care continuum.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

While non-VA options increased access to LCS for Veterans, VA medical centers lacked clear processes for initiating LCS referrals and tracking Veterans across the LCS continuum when screening occurred in non-VA settings. The responsibility of coordinating LCS with community providers often fell to VA primary care providers rather than LCS programs. Gaps in communication and data transfer contributed to delayed evaluation of potentially cancerous nodules post-screening, raising concerns about compromised care quality when LCS was shared with non-VA settings.

CONCLUSIONS

While policies expanding LCS for Veterans in non-VA settings increase access, lack of consistent processes to initiate referrals, obtain results, and promote timely downstream evaluation fragmented care and delayed evaluation of concerning nodules. These unintended consequences highlight a need to address cross-system coordination challenges. Strategies to better coordinate LCS between VA and non-VA settings are essential to achieve high quality LCS and prevent Veterans from falling through the cracks.

Predicting the Future by Studying the Past for Patients With Cancer Diagnosed in the Emergency Department

In the article that accompanies this editorial, Kapadia et al. developed a digital quality measure to identify emergency presentations of incident cancers, a measure they found to associated with both antecedent missed opportunities for diagnosis and subsequent 1-year all-cause mortality. Their work highlights the need for a cancer control continuum that includes, not only improved early detection, but also improved symptom recognition, expedited diagnostic work-up, and increased downstream support, including multilevel interventions focused on care continuity and symptom management for these patients with emergency presentations of cancer to improve cancer outcomes.

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.

Qualitative Findings From a Survey on Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

To reveal successes and potential limitations of the lung cancer screening program, we conducted a survey that included both quantitative and open-ended questions to measure patient experiences and satisfaction with screening.

METHODS

We report on the five open-ended items related to barriers to returning for screening, experience with other cancer prevention screenings, positive and negative experiences, and suggestions for improving future appointments. The open-ended responses were analyzed using constant comparison method and inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents (182 patients, 86% response rate for open-ended questions) provided generally positive comments about their lung cancer screening experience. Negative comments were related to desire for more information about results, long wait times for results, and billing issues. Suggestions for improvements included: scheduling on-line appointments and text or email reminders, lower costs, and responding to uncertainty about eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSION

Findings provide insights about patient experiences and satisfaction with lung cancer screening which is important given low uptake. Ongoing patient-centered feedback may improve the lung cancer screening experience and increase follow-up screening rates.

Health Disparities in Cancer Among American Indians and Alaska Natives

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are underserved populations who suffer from several health disparities, 1 of which is cancer. Malignancies, especially cancers of the breast, liver, and lung, are common causes of death in this population. Health care disparities in this population include more limited access to diagnostic radiology because of geographic and/or health system limitations. Early detection of these cancers may be enabled by improving patient and physician access to medical imaging. Awareness by the radiology community of the cancer disparities among this population is needed to support research targeted to this specific ethnic group and to support outreach efforts to provide more imaging opportunities. Providing greater access to imaging facilities will also improve patient compliance with screening recommendations, ultimately improving mortality in these populations.

Trends in age- and sex-specific lung cancer mortality in Europe and Northern America: Analysis of vital registration data from the WHO Mortality Database between 2000 and 2017

BACKGROUND

In the context of new targeted therapies and immunotherapy as well as screening modalities for lung cancer patients, detailed mortality trends in Europe and Northern America are unknown.

METHODS

Time-trend analysis using vital registration data of Northern America and Europe from the WHO Mortality Database (years 2000/2017). To assess improvements in lung cancer mortality, we performed a population-averaged Poisson autoregressive analysis. The average annual percent change (AAPC) was used as a summary measure of overall and country-specific trends in mortality. Second, we studied time trends of lung cancer incidence and smoking prevalence rates.

FINDINGS

In the total population of 872·5 million people between 2015 and 2017, the average annual age-standardised mortality from lung cancer was 54·6 deaths per 100 000, with substantial differences across countries. Lung cancer was reported as the primary cause of death in 5·4 cases per 100 deaths. The age-standardised mortality rate decreased constantly (AAPC -1·5%) between 2000 and 2017. While mortality in men dropped annually by an average of -2·3%, mortality in women decreased by an average of -0·3%. This slight decline was driven exclusively by the USA. In contrast, 21 out of 31 countries registered a significant increase in female lung cancer mortality between 2000 and 2017, with Spain (AAPC 4·1%) and France (AAPC 3·6%) leading the list.

INTERPRETATION

Despite overall decreases in lung cancer mortality trends, female mortality remained unchanged or increased significantly in all countries except the USA. National mortality outcomes reflect variabilities in tobacco control, screening, therapeutic advances, and access to health care.

Contemporary issues in the implementation of lung cancer screening

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography can reduce death from lung cancer by 20-24% in high-risk smokers. National lung cancer screening programmes have been implemented in the USA and Korea and are being implemented in Europe, Canada and other countries. Lung cancer screening is a process, not a test. It requires an organised programmatic approach to replicate the lung cancer mortality reduction and safety of pivotal clinical trials. Cost-effectiveness of a screening programme is strongly influenced by screening sensitivity and specificity, age to stop screening, integration of smoking cessation intervention for current smokers, screening uptake, nodule management and treatment costs. Appropriate management of screen-detected lung nodules has significant implications for healthcare resource utilisation and minimising harm from radiation exposure related to imaging studies, invasive procedures and clinically significant distress. This review focuses on selected contemporary issues in the path to implement a cost-effective lung cancer screening at the population level. The future impact of emerging technologies such as deep learning and biomarkers are also discussed.

Walking the talk on multi-level interventions: The power of parsimony

There is strong consensus regarding the need for multi-level interventions (MLIs) to address today's complex health problems. Several longstanding social ecological frameworks are commonly referred to in guiding MLI development. The specificity and comprehensiveness of these frameworks unwittingly suggest that the totality of included influences are important in all health contexts. Not surprisingly, when viewed as requiring intervention at all levels of influence, MLIs are often considered to be infeasible due to sizeable cost and logistical barriers. Thus, efforts to develop and evaluate MLIs have been extremely limited, and comparatively few examples are found in the health literature. We argue that operational frameworks to identify which levels matter in which contexts - henceforth, referred to as parsimony - could accelerate the field towards broader use of MLIs. We suggest a hypothetical operational framework informed by complexity theory and pragmatic approaches that could enable us to conceptualize, design and evaluate MLIs to consider where reflexive and recursive process mechanisms that cross levels should be targeted by MLI. The approach also emphasizes sustainability of MLIs. Without developing parsimony-based operational frameworks to move us forward, we fear that little will change, and we will simply continue to talk, without proceeding to the walk.

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.

Access to Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration: Does Geographic Distribution Match Need in the Population?

BACKGROUND

Studies show uneven access to Medicare-approved lung cancer screening (LCS) programs across the United States. The Veterans Health Administration (VA), the largest national US integrated health system, is potentially well positioned to coordinate LCS services across regional units to ensure that access matches distribution of need nationally.

RESEARCH QUESTION

To what extent does LCS access (considering both VA and partner sites) and use match the distribution of eligible Veterans at state and regional levels?

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we identified LCS examinations in VA facilities between 2013 and 2019 from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and plotted VA facilities with LCS geographically. We compared estimated LCS rates (unique Veterans screened per LCS-eligible population) across states and VA regional units. Finally, we assessed whether the VA's new partnership with the GO₂ Foundation for Lung Cancer (which includes more than 750 LCS centers) closes geographic gaps in LCS access.

RESULTS

We identified 71,898 LCS examinations in 96 of 139 (69.1%) VA facilities in 44 states between 2013 and 2019, with substantial variation across states (0-8 VA LCS facilities per state). Screening rates among eligible Veterans in the population varied more than 30-fold across regional networks (rate ratio, 33.6; 95% CI, 30.8-36.7 for VA New England vs Veterans Integrated Service Network 4), with weak correlation between eligible populations and LCS rates (coefficient, -0.30). Partnering with the GO₂ Foundation for Lung Cancer expands capacity and access (eg, all states now have ≥ 1 VA or partner LCS site), but 9 of the 12 states with the highest proportions of rural Veterans still have ≤ 3 total LCS facilities.

INTERPRETATION

Disparities in LCS access exist based on where Veterans live, particularly for rural Veterans, even after partnering with the GO₂ Foundation for Lung Cancer. The nationally integrated VA system has an opportunity to leverage regional resources to distribute and coordinate LCS services better to ensure equitable access.

Narrowing the Gap: Imaging Disparities in Radiology

It may seem unlikely that the field of radiology perpetuates disparities in health care, as most radiologists never interact directly with patients, and racial bias is not an obvious factor when interpreting images. However, a closer look reveals that imaging plays an important role in the propagation of disparities. For example, many advanced and resource-intensive imaging modalities, such as MRI and PET/CT, are generally less available in the hospitals frequented by people of color, and when they are available, access is impeded due to longer travel and wait times. Furthermore, their images may be of lower quality, and their interpretations may be more error prone. The aggregate effect of these imaging acquisition and interpretation disparities in conjunction with social factors is insufficiently recognized as part of the wide variation in disease outcomes seen between races in America. Understanding the nature of disparities in radiology is important to effectively deploy the resources and expertise necessary to mitigate disparities through diversity and inclusion efforts, research, and advocacy. In this article, the authors discuss disparities in access to imaging, examine their causes, and propose solutions aimed at addressing these disparities.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Ecologic association between influenza and COVID-19 mortality rates in European countries

Ecologic studies investigating COVID-19 mortality determinants, used to make predictions and design public health control measures, generally focused on population-based variable counterparts of individual-based risk factors. Influenza is not causally associated with COVID-19, but shares population-based determinants, such as similar incidence/mortality trends, transmission patterns, efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions, comorbidities and underdiagnosis. We investigated the ecologic association between influenza mortality rates and COVID-19 mortality rates in the European context. We considered the 3-year average influenza (2014-2016) and COVID-19 (31 May 2020) crude mortality rates in 34 countries using EUROSTAT and ECDC databases and performed correlation and regression analyses. The two variables - log transformed, showed significant Spearman's correlation ρ = 0.439 (P = 0.01), and regression coefficients, b = 0.743 (95% confidence interval, 0.272-1.214; R2 = 0.244; P = 0.003), b = 0.472 (95% confidence interval, 0.067-0.878; R2 = 0.549; P = 0.02), unadjusted and adjusted for confounders (population size and cardiovascular disease mortality), respectively. Common significant determinants of both COVID-19 and influenza mortality rates were life expectancy, influenza vaccination in the elderly (direct associations), number of hospital beds per population unit and crude cardiovascular disease mortality rate (inverse associations). This analysis suggests that influenza mortality rates were independently associated with COVID-19 mortality rates in Europe, with implications for public health preparedness, and implies preliminary undetected SARS-CoV-2 spread in Europe.

Mobile Lung Screening: Should We All Get on the Bus?

BACKGROUND

Despite favorable recommendations, national lung screening adoption remains low (2% to 3%). Patients living in rural areas have additional challenges, including access to lung screening programs. We initiated a mobile lung screening program to serve the rural patients at risk. This is what we learned from this 12-month feasibility project.

METHODS

Utilizing a multidisciplinary approach, we began an 8-month design and build schedule. This was the first build of this type. The operational team included a radiology technician, nurse practitioner, driver with a commercial driver's license, and program developer. Specialized software was used for data mining. Downstream revenue projections were based on previously published Medicare claims data. Generally accepted accounting principles were used.

RESULTS

The prototype bus was delivered January 2018. During the 12-month feasibility period, we performed 548 low-dose lung screenings at 104 sites. Mean patient age was 62 years, mean pack-years of smoking was 41; 258 (47%) were male. Five lung cancers were found in addition to a type B thymoma. Financially, we exceeded the break-even analysis by 28%. The 5-year pro forma using 1 year of actual data and 4 additional years of projected data demonstrated a net present value of 1 million, internal rate of return of 34.6%, and profitability index of 2.2-all highly dependent on downstream revenue.

CONCLUSIONS

Although challenges exist, a commercially viable bus and a financially sound mobile program can be developed. However, without a centralized approach for incidental findings, the downstream revenue may be at risk as well as the financial viability of the project.