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

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.

Understanding Washington State's Low Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening in Two Steps: A Geospatial Analysis of Patient Travel Time and Health Care Availability of Imaging Sites

BACKGROUND

Early detection of lung cancer reduces cancer mortality; yet uptake for lung cancer screening (LCS) has been limited in Washington State. Geographic disparities contribute to low uptake, but do not wholly explain gaps in access for underserved populations. Other factors, such as an adequate workforce to meet population demand and the capacity of accredited screening facility sites, must also be considered.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What proportion of the eligible population for LCS has access to LCS facilities in Washington State?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We used the enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) model to evaluate how geographic accessibility in addition to availability of LCS imaging centers contribute to disparities. We used available data on radiologic technologist volume at each American College of Radiology (ACR)-accredited screening facility site to estimate the capacity of each site to meet potential population demand. Spearman rank correlation coefficients of the spatial access ratios were compared with the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes and area deprivation index quintiles to identify characteristics of populations at risk for lung cancer with greater and lesser levels of access.

RESULTS

A total of 549 radiologic technologists were identified across the 95 ACR-accredited screening facilities. We observed that 95% of the eligible population had proximate geographic access to any ACR facility. However, when we incorporated the E2SFCA method, we found significant variation of access for eligible populations. The inclusion of the availability measure attenuated access for most of the eligible population. Furthermore, we observed that rural areas were substantially correlated, and areas with greater socioeconomic disadvantage were modestly correlated, with lower access.

INTERPRETATION

Rural and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas face significant disparities. The E2SFCA models demonstrated that capacity is an important component and how geographic access and availability jointly contribute to disparities in access to LCS.

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.

Proactively tailoring implementation: the case of shared decision-making for lung cancer screening across the VA New England Healthcare Network

BACKGROUND

Shared Decision-Making to discuss how the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening align with patient values is required by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and recommended by multiple organizations. Barriers at organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels prevent SDM from meeting quality standards in routine practice. We developed an implementation plan, using the socio-ecological model, for Shared Decision-Making for lung cancer screening for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. Because understanding the local context is critical to implementation success, we sought to proactively tailor our original implementation plan, to address barriers to achieving guideline-concordant lung cancer screening.

METHODS

We conducted a formative evaluation using an ethnographic approach to proactively identify barriers to Shared Decision-Making and tailor our implementation plan. Data consisted of qualitative interviews with leadership and clinicians from seven VA New England medical centers, regional meeting notes, and Shared Decision-Making scripts and documents used by providers. Tailoring was guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS).

RESULTS

We tailored the original implementation plan to address barriers we identified at the organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels. Overall, we removed two implementation strategies, added five strategies, and modified the content of two strategies. For example, at the clinician level, we learned that past personal and clinical experiences predisposed clinicians to focus on the benefits of lung cancer screening. To address this barrier, we modified the content of our original implementation strategy Make Training Dynamic to prompt providers to self-reflect about their screening beliefs and values, encouraging them to discuss both the benefits and potential harms of lung cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Formative evaluations can be used to proactively tailor implementation strategies to fit local contexts. We tailored our implementation plan to address unique barriers we identified, with the goal of improving implementation success. The FRAME-IS aided our team in thoughtfully addressing and modifying our original implementation plan. Others seeking to maximize the effectiveness of complex interventions may consider using a similar approach.

Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Guidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled.

Intervention

A web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months.

Results

Of 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.

Use of Veterans Health Administration Structured Data to Identify Patients Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake is low. Assessing patients' cigarette pack-years and years since quitting is challenging given the lack of documentation in structured electronic health record data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a convenience sample of patients with a chest CT scan in the Veterans Health Administration. We abstracted data on cigarette use from electronic health record notes to determine LCS eligibility based on the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force age and cigarette use eligibility criteria. We used these data as the "ground truth" of LCS eligibility to compare them with structured data regarding tobacco use and a COPD diagnosis. We calculated sensitivity and specificity as well as fast-and-frugal decision trees.

RESULTS

For 50-80-year-old veterans identified as former or current tobacco users, we obtained 94% sensitivity and 47% specificity. For 50-80-year-old veterans identified as current tobacco users, we obtained 59% sensitivity and 79% specificity. Our fast-and-frugal decision tree that included a COPD diagnosis had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 60%.

CONCLUSION

These results can help health care systems make their LCS outreach efforts more efficient and give administrators and researchers a simple method to estimate their number of possibly eligible patients.

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.

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

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

Practical Approaches to Advancing Health Equity in Radiology, From the AJR Special Series on DEI

Despite significant advances in healthcare, many patients from medically underserved populations are impacted by existing healthcare disparities. Radiologists are uniquely positioned to decrease health disparities and advance health equity efforts in their practices. However, literature on practical tools for advancing radiology health equity efforts applicable to a wide variety of patient populations and care settings is lacking. Therefore, this article seeks to equip radiologists with an evidence-based and practical knowledge toolkit of health equity strategies, presented in terms of four pillars of research, clinical care, education, and innovation. For each pillar, equity efforts across diverse patient populations and radiology practice settings are examined through the lens of existing barriers, current best practices, and future directions, incorporating practical examples relevant to a spectrum of patient populations. Health equity efforts provide an opportune window to transform radiology through personalized care delivery that is responsive to diverse patient needs. Guided by compassion and empathy as core principles of health equity, leveraging the four pillars provides a helpful framework to advance health equity efforts as a step towards social justice in health.

Consensus elements for observational research on COVID-19-related long-term outcomes

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and its long-term outcomes may be jointly caused by a wide range of clinical, social, and economic characteristics. Studies aiming to identify mechanisms for SARS-CoV-2 morbidity and mortality must measure and account for these characteristics to arrive at unbiased, accurate conclusions. We sought to inform the design, measurement, and analysis of longitudinal studies of long-term outcomes among people infected with SARS-CoV-2. We fielded a survey to an interprofessional group of clinicians and scientists to identify factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent outcomes. Using an iterative process, we refined the resulting list of factors into a consensus causal diagram relating infection and 12-month mortality. Finally, we operationalized concepts from the causal diagram into minimally sufficient adjustment sets using common medical record data elements. Total 31 investigators identified 49 potential risk factors for and 72 potential consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Risk factors for infection with SARS-CoV-2 were grouped into five domains: demographics, physical health, mental health, personal social, and economic factors, and external social and economic factors. Consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were grouped into clinical consequences, social consequences, and economic consequences. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection were developed into a consensus directed acyclic graph for mortality that included two minimally sufficient adjustment sets. We present a collectively developed and iteratively refined list of data elements for observational research in SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease. By accounting for these elements, studies aimed at identifying causal pathways for long-term outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be made more informative.

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESEARCH QUESTION

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

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up

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

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.

Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study to assess the importance of coexisting chronic conditions to clinical practice and policy: protocol for a multicentre observational study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA and worldwide, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to improve lung cancer outcomes. A critical question is whether the ratio of potential benefits to harms found in prior LCS trials applies to an older and potentially sicker population. The Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study will help close this knowledge gap by leveraging real-world data to fully characterise LCS recipients. The principal goal of the PLuS study is to characterise the comorbidity burden of individuals undergoing LCS and quantify the benefits and harms of LCS to enable informed decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PLuS is a multicentre observational study designed to assemble an LCS cohort from the electronic health records of ~40 000 individuals undergoing annual LCS with LDCT from 2016 to 2022. Data will be integrated into a unified repository to (1) examine the burden of multimorbidity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age; (2) quantify potential benefits and harms; and (3) use the observational data with validated simulation models in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to provide LCS outcomes in the real-world US population. We will fit a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted ORs of comorbidity, functional limitations and impaired pulmonary function adjusted for relevant covariates. We will also estimate the cumulative risk of LCS outcomes using discrete-time survival models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine observational data and simulation models to estimate the long-term impact of LCS with LDCT.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board and VA Portland Health Care System. The results will be disseminated through publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Safety considerations include protection of patient confidentiality.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) via low-dose chest computed tomography can prevent mortality through surgical resection of early-stage cancers, but it is unknown whether poor health is associated with screening. Though LCS may be associated with better outcomes for non-Hispanic Black individuals, it is unknown whether racial or ethnic disparities exist in LCS use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether health status is associated with LCS and whether racial or ethnic disparities are associated with LCS independently of health status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, population-based study of community-dwelling US adults used data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System annual surveys, 2017 to 2020. Participants were aged 55 to 79 years, with a less than 30 pack-year smoking history, and were current smokers or those who quit within 15 years. Data were analyzed from August to November 2021.

EXPOSURES

Self-reported health status and race and ethnicity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported LCS in the last 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 14 550 individuals (7802 men [55.5%]; 7527 [55.0%] aged 65-79 years [percentages are weighted]), representing 3.68 million US residents, 17.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-18.9%) reported undergoing LCS. The prevalence of LCS was lower among non-Hispanic Black than non-Hispanic White individuals but not to a significant degree (12.0% [95% CI, 4.3%-19.7%] vs 17.5% [95% CI, 15.6%-19.5%]; P = .57). Health status was associated with LCS: 468 individuals in poor health vs 96 individuals in excellent health reported LCS (25.2% [95% CI, 20.6%-29.9%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.3%]; P < .001), and those with difficulty climbing stairs were more likely to report LCS than those without this functional limitation. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, functional status, and comorbidities, self-rated health status remained associated with LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 per each 1-step decline in health; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), and non-Hispanic Black individuals were 53% less likely to report LCS than non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses in which health was alternatively quantified as number of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

LCS in the US is more common among those who may be less likely to benefit from screening because of poor underlying health. Furthermore, racial or ethnic disparities were evident after accounting for health status, with non-Hispanic Black individuals nearly half as likely as non-Hispanic White individuals to report LCS despite the potential for greater benefit of screening this population.

Association of Rurality With Annual Repeat Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration

PURPOSE

Lung cancer causes the largest number of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Lung cancer incidence rates, mortality rates, and rates of advanced stage disease are higher among those who live in rural areas. Known disparities in lung cancer outcomes between rural and nonrural populations may be in part because of barriers faced by rural populations. The authors tested the hypothesis that among Veterans who receive initial lung cancer screening, rural Veterans would be less likely to complete annual repeat screening than nonrural Veterans.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 10 Veterans Affairs medical centers from 2015 to 2019. Rural and nonrural Veterans undergoing lung cancer screening were identified. Rural status was defined using the rural-urban commuting area codes. The primary outcome was annual repeat lung cancer screening in the 9- to 15-month window (primary analysis) and 31-day to 18-month window (sensitivity analysis) after the first documented lung cancer screening. To examine rurality as a predictor of annual repeat lung cancer screening, multivariable logistic regression models were used.

RESULTS

In the final analytic sample of 11,402 Veterans, annual repeat lung cancer screening occurred in 27.7% of rural Veterans (641 of 2,316) and 31.8% of nonrural Veterans (2,891 of 9,086) (adjusted odds ratio: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.03). Similar results were seen in the sensitivity analysis, with 41.6% of rural Veterans (963 of 2,316) versus 45.2% of nonrural Veterans (4,110 of 9,086) (adjusted odds ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.04) having annual repeat screening in the expanded 31-day to 18-month window.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a national cohort of Veterans, rural residence was associated with numerically lower odds of annual repeat lung cancer screening than nonrural residence. Continued, intentional outreach efforts to increase annual repeat lung cancer screening among rural Veterans may offer an opportunity to decrease deaths from lung cancer.

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening across a Veterans Health Administration Hospital Network

Shared-decision making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended by multiple organizations, reflecting a larger movement towards patient-centered care. Yet SDM for LCS does not routinely occur due to barriers at multiple levels. Moreover, how best to implement SDM into routine clinical practice remains unknown. There is a need for a novel approach to overcome multi-level barriers and ensure high-quality SDM for LCS is integrated into routine practice. We present the protocol for our US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) funded study. Our protocol is designed to implement and evaluate a multi-level, tailored approach to SDM for LCS in routine clinical practice within the VA New England Health Care Network, comprising eight medical centers. In this prospective, pragmatic hybrid implementation-effectiveness study, we will first conduct a formative evaluation of barriers to SDM for LCS at each level of the socioecological model, which will inform our tailored implementation plan. We will then sequentially introduce components of our tailored, multi-level approach to implementing SDM for LCS across VA New England. Finally, using mixed methods, we will evaluate the implementation and its impact on Effectiveness (primary outcome, defined as patient-centeredness of SDM), as well as implementation outcomes informed by the RE-AIM implementation science framework (i.e., Reach to patients, Adoption by providers, Implementation fidelity). Tailored implementation will address identified challenges to achieving policy recommendations for SDM for LCS in VA New England, inform nationwide implementation of SDM for LCS, and address stakeholder interests in promoting more patient-centered interactions across the VA.

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

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality with close follow-up and adherence to management recommendations. Little is known about factors associated with adherence to LCS in real-world practice, with data limited to case series from selected LCS programs.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze adherence to follow-up based on standardized follow-up recommendations in a national cohort and to identify factors associated with delayed or absent follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the US. Veterans were screened for lung cancer between 2015 to 2019 with sufficient follow-up time to receive recommended evaluation. Patient- and facility-level logistic regression analyses were performed. Data were analyzed from November 26, 2019, to December 16, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Receipt of the recommended next step after initial LCS according to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) category, as captured in VHA or Medicare claims.

RESULTS

Of 28 294 veterans (26 835 [94.8%] men; 21 969 individuals [77.6%] were White; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [5.5] years) who had an initial LCS examination, 17 863 veterans (63.1%) underwent recommended follow-up within the expected timeframe, whereas 3696 veterans (13.1%) underwent late evaluation, and 4439 veterans (15.7%) had no apparent evaluation. Facility-level differences were associated with 9.2% of the observed variation in rates of late or absent evaluation. In multivariable-adjusted models, Black veterans (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.10-1.29]), veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.23]), veterans with substance use disorders (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.22]), veterans with lower income (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]), and those living at a greater distance from a VHA facility (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.10]) were more likely to experience delayed or no follow-up; veterans with higher risk findings (Lung-RADS category 4 vs Lung-RADS category 1: OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.43]) and those screened in high LCS volume facilities (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.67]) or academic facilities (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.92]) were less likely to experience delayed or no follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, varying how stringently adherence was defined, expected evaluation ranged from 14 486 veterans (49.7%) under stringent definitions to 20 578 veterans (78.8%) under liberal definitions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study that captured follow-up care from the integrated VHA health care system and Medicare, less than two-thirds of patients received timely recommended follow-up after initial LCS, with higher risk of delayed or absent follow-up among marginalized populations, such as Black individuals, individuals with mental health disorders, and individuals with low income, that have long experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes. Future work should focus on identifying facilities that promote high adherence and disseminating successful strategies to promote equity in LCS among marginalized populations.