The Effect of Primary Care Physician Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines on Perceptions and Utilization of Low-Dose Computed Tomography

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Provider engagement and outreach

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan for provider engagement and outreach addresses barriers to the uptake of lung cancer screening, including lack of provider awareness and guideline knowledge about screening, concerns about potential harms from false-positive examinations, lack of time to implement workflows within busy primary care practices, insufficient infrastructure and administrative support to manage a screening program and patient follow-up, and implicit bias based on sex, race/ethnicity, social class, and smoking status. Strategies to facilitate screening include educational programming, clinical reminder systems within the electronic medical record, decision support aids, and tools to track nodules that can be implemented across a diversity of practices and health care organizational structures. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan to reduce deaths from lung cancer includes strategies designed to support health care professionals, to better understand lung cancer screening, and to support adults who are eligible for lung cancer screening by providing counseling, referral, and follow-up.

Assessment and management patterns for chronic musculoskeletal pain in the family practice setting

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain affects 11% of the US population. Most patients who experience pain, particularly chronic musculoskeletal pain, seek care in primary care settings. Assessment of the patient pain experience is the cornerstone to optimal pain management; however, pain assessment remains a challenge for medical professionals. It is unknown to what extent the assessment of pain intensity is considered in context of function and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To understand common practices related to assessment of pain and function in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

A 42-item electronic survey was developed with self-reported numeric ratings and responses related to knowledge, beliefs, and current practices. All physicians and non-physician clinicians affiliated with the AAFP NRN and 2000 AAFP physician members were invited to participate.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

Primary care clinicians report that chronic joint pain assessment should be comprehensive, citing assessment elements that align with the comprehensive pain assessment models. Pain intensity remains the primary focus of pain assessment in chronic joint pain and the most important factor in guiding treatment decisions, despite well-known limitations. Clinicians also report that patients with osteoarthritis should be treated by Family Medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain assessment is primarily limited to pain intensity scales which may contribute to worse patient outcomes. Given that most respondents believe primary care/family medicine should be primary responsible for the care of patients with osteoarthritis, awareness of and comfort with existing guidelines, validated assessment instruments and the comprehensive pain assessment models could contribute to delivery of more comprehensive care.

The journey of lung cancer patients from symptoms to diagnosis in Greece. A mixed methods approach

The early diagnosis of lung cancer improves the probability of successful treatment. However, patients and physicians face several difficulties that can considerably delay the diagnostic process. A mixed-methods study that would follow the patient's journey throughout the diagnostic process could alleviate these difficulties. This study aimed to (a) track the patients' journey from the onset of symptoms until diagnosis and, (b) explore the patients' perspective of the journey until diagnosis, on the largest island of Greece. A convergent mixed-methods study was conducted with 94 patients with lung cancer. Patients completed a self-report questionnaire and were interviewed about their symptoms and journey through the healthcare system before their diagnosis. Our findings revealed several problems and delays in the diagnostic process. Both quantitative and qualitative data showed that patients did not recognize their symptoms and sought medical advice in time because they overlooked or attributed their symptoms to 'simpler'/'more common' causes. Furthermore, most patients were diagnosed 1-3 months after their first visit to a physician for their symptoms. Qualitative data analysis revealed three broad categories of problems that delayed diagnosis: (1) physician missteps, (2) administrative problems, and (3) the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic. This study found that major issues and delays prolong the diagnostic process for lung cancer. Therefore, optimization of diagnostic processes at each level of healthcare and interspecialty cooperation programs are needed. Furthermore, population-based interventions and patient education can help lung cancer patients be diagnosed early and improve their quality of life and disease outcomes.

Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

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.

Access to Lung Cancer Screening

Rural and racial/ethnic minority communities experience higher risk and mortality from lung cancer. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography reduces mortality. However, disparities persist in the uptake of lung cancer screening, especially in marginalized communities. Barriers to lung cancer screening are multilevel and include patient, provider, and system-level barriers. This discussion highlights the key barriers faced by rural and racial/ethnic minority communities.

Development and Evaluation of Brief Web-Based Education for Primary Care Providers to Address Inequities in Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Treatment

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk for lung cancer. However, primary care provider-initiated discussions about LCS and referrals for screening are low overall, particularly among Black or African Americans and other minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Disparities also exist in receiving provider advice to quit smoking. Effective methods are needed to improve provider knowledge about LCS and tobacco-related disparities, and to provide resources to achieve equity in LCS rates. We report the feasibility and impact of pairing a self-directed Lung Cancer Health Disparities (HD) Web-based course with the National Training Network Lung Cancer Screening (LuCa) course on primary care providers' knowledge about LCS and the health disparities associated with LCS. In a quasi-experimental study, primary care providers (N = 91) recruited from the MedStar Health System were assigned to complete the LuCa course only vs. the LuCa + HD courses. We measured pre-post-LCS-related knowledge and opinions about the courses. The majority (60.4%) of providers were resident physicians. There was no significant difference between groups on post-test knowledge (p > 0.05). However, within groups, there was an improvement in knowledge from pre- to post-test (LuCa only (p = 0.03); LuCa + HD (p < 0.001)). The majority of providers (81%) indicated they planned to improve their screening and preventive practices after having reviewed the educational modules. These findings provide preliminary evidence that this e-learning course can be used to educate providers on LCS, smoking cessation, and related disparities impacting patients.

Impact of Federal Lung Cancer Screening Policy on the Incidence of Early-stage Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In December 2013 the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual lung cancer screening for high-risk patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) later announced coverage in 2015. The impact of these federal decisions at the population level is unknown.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we studied changes in lung cancer incidence by stage and linked to US census data to obtain age-adjusted estimates standardized to the US population. Based on age at diagnosis we stratified patients as age-eligible or age-ineligible for screening. We used difference-in-differences regression to determine the effect of screening on lung cancer incidence by stage.

RESULTS

For all age groups the incidence of early-stage lung cancer both before and after the USPSTF guidelines remained relatively stable at 12.8 ± 0.52 and 13.5 ± 0.92 per 100,000 patients, respectively (P = .068). However the difference-in-differences analysis estimated an absolute increase in the age-adjusted incidence by 3.4 per 100,000 persons in the age-eligible group after the announcement of the guidelines (P = .007). The effect was even larger after the CMS decision (4.3/100,000 persons, P < .001). Similarly there was a 14.2 per 100,000 persons absolute reduction in the incidence of advanced-stage lung cancer (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines and CMS coverage decisions were associated with an increased incidence of early-stage lung cancer and decreased incidence of advance-staged lung cancer at the population level.

Behavior of general physicians about lung cancer screening in a French region hosting a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in France and has a 5-year survival rate of 20%. Recent prospective randomized controlled trials revealed that lung cancer-specific mortality decreased in patients who underwent screening using low-dose chest computed tomography (low-dose CT). The DEP KP80 pilot study conducted in 2016 showed that an organized lung cancer screening campaign involving general practitioners was feasible.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We conducted a descriptive observational study of screening practices by sending a self-reported questionnaire to 1013 general practitioners practicing in the Hauts-de-France region. Our study's primary aim was to investigate the knowledge and practices of general practitioners in the Hauts-de-France region of France regarding lung cancer screening using low-dose CT. The secondary endpoint was to compare practices between general practitioners in the Somme department who had experience of experimental screening and their colleagues in the rest of the region.

RESULTS

The response rate was 18.8% (190 completed questionnaires). Even though 69.5% of the physicians were unaware of the potential benefits of organized low-dose CT screening for lung cancer, 76% proposed screening tests for individual patients. Despite its proven ineffectiveness, chest radiography was still the most widely recommended screening modality. Half of the physicians stated that they had already prescribed chest CT to screen for lung cancer. Additionally, only 36.3% proposed chest CT screening for patients aged over 50 years with a history of more than 30 pack-years. The physicians working in the Somme department (61% had participated in the DEP KP80 pilot study) were more aware of low-dose CT as a screening modality, and offered it significantly more than their colleagues in the other departments (61.1% vs 13.4% p<0.01). All the physicians were in favor of an organized screening program.

CONCLUSION

More than a third of general practitioners in the Hauts-de-France region offered for lung cancer screening using chest CT, although only 18% specified low-dose CT. Before an organized screening program can be set up, good practice guidelines must be made available about lung cancer screening.

Influencing factors of LDCT recommendation by physicians in Sichuan Province, China

The study aimed to investigate the influencing factors of physicians in recommending low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening to high-risk groups. A total of 1767 participants with good knowledge of LDCT were included in a cross-sectional study. Data about physicians' demographics, perception of barriers on LDCT screening, medical conditions for practicing medicine and the behavior of recommending LDCT were collected by a questionnaire. Physicians who care about the transportation convenience of patients were less likely to recommend LDCT (OR 0.568, 95% CI (0.423 to 0.763), p < 0.05). The physicians who considered LDCT expensive, recommended LDCT less than others (OR 0.308, 95% CI (0.186 to 0.510), p < 0.05). The false positive rate of LDCT can decrease the possibility of physicians' recommending (OR 0.542, 95% CI (0.387 to 0.758), p < 0.05). The physicians in oncology department and health management center were more likely to recommend LDCT (OR 2.282, 95% CI (1.557 to 3.345); OR 2.476, 95% CI (1.618 to 3.791)). The convenience of transportation, the price, and the\ false positive rate may be the main concerns among physicians on recommending LDCT to high-risk groups. The influencing factors of physicians' recommending on LDCT was various. Information technology, government support in price and self-improvement of LDCT should be gathered together to break the barriers on physicians' recommending on LDCT.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evidence of Racial Disparities in the Lung Cancer Screening Process: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality, with greater reduction observed in Black participants in clinical trials. While racial disparities in lung cancer mortality exist, less is known about disparities in LCS participation. We conducted a systematic review to explore LCS participation in Black compared with White patients in the USA.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted through a search of published studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied-Health Literature Database, from database inception through October 2020. We included studies that examined rates of LCS participation and compared rates by race. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We screened 18,300 titles/abstracts; 229 studies were selected for full-text review, of which nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into 2 groups: studies that reported the screening rate among an LCS-eligible patient population, and studies that reported the screening rate among a patient population referred for LCS. Median LCS participation rates were 14.4% (range 1.7 to 62.6%) for eligible patient studies and 68.5% (range 62.6 to 88.8%) for referred patient studies. The meta-analyses showed screening rates were lower in the Black compared to White population among the LCS-eligible patient studies ([OR]=0.43, [95% CI: 0.25, 0.74]). However, screening rates were the same between Black and White patients in the referred patient studies (OR=0.94, [95% CI: 0.74, 1.19]).

DISCUSSION

Black LCS-eligible patients are being screened at a lower rate than White patients but have similar rates of participation once referred. Differences in referrals by providers may contribute to the racial disparity in LCS participation. More studies are needed to identify barriers to LCS referral and develop interventions to increase provider awareness of the importance of LCS in Black patients. Trial Registry PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020214213; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung cancer screening: A mixed methods systematic review

Numerous factors contribute to the low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) programs. A theory-informed approach to identifying the obstacles and facilitators to LCS uptake is required. This study aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize the available literature at the individual and healthcare provider (HCP) levels based on a social-ecological model and identify gaps to improve practice and policy decision-making. Systematic searches were conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to December 31, 2020. We also searched Google Scholar and manually examined the reference lists of systematic reviews to include relevant articles. Primary studies were scored for quality assessment. Among 3938 potentially relevant articles, 36 studies, including 25 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, were identified for inclusion in the review. Fifteen common factors were extracted from 34 studies, including nine barriers and six facilitators. The barriers included individual factors (n = 5), health system factors (n = 3), and social/environmental factors (n = 1). The facilitators included only individual factors (n = 6). However, two factors, age and screening harm, remain mixed. This systematic review identified and combined barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake at the individual and HCP levels. The interaction mechanisms among these factors should be further explored, which will allow the construction of tailored LCS recommendations or interventions for the Chinese context.

High Value Care in Cancer Surveillance and Screening: Evaluating an e-Curriculum for Primary Care Providers

BACKGROUND

With an expected shortage of oncologists, primary care providers (PCPs) may need to manage more cancer surveillance and screening, areas where educational resources for PCPs have been limited. The goal of this e-curriculum was for PCPs to learn surveillance and screening for several common cancers.

METHODS

The e-curriculum covered breast and colorectal cancer surveillance and lung cancer screening with (1) a pre-test assessing knowledge, attitudes, practice patterns, and confidence; (2) case vignette-based teaching; and (3) an immediate post-test (with knowledge and confidence items identical to the pre-test) providing feedback. A delayed post-test was administered several months later. The curriculum and test items were developed by content experts and evaluated in a primary care group practice.

RESULTS

Of 167 community PCPs, 152 completed the pre-test (91%), 145 completed the immediate post-test (87%), and 63 completed the delayed post-test (37%); 62 PCPs completed all three tests (37%). The median score on the pre-test was 43%, immediate post-test was 93%, and delayed post-test was 70%. For PCPs completing all three tests, the median scores were 50%, 90%, and 70%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The percentage of PCPs confident in their knowledge 4 to 6 months after module completion compared to the pre-test baseline was statistically significant for lung cancer screening but not for cancer surveillance.

CONCLUSION

This curriculum provided concise, effective education for PCPs on 3 common cancers. Limitations include content breadth and lack of data reflecting physician ordering patterns. Curricular strengths include its accessibility, immediate feedback, and effectiveness, with a significant improvement in immediate and delayed post-test knowledge. Given a lack of increased confidence to provide cancer surveillance, PCPs should rely on electronic medical record tools and other resources to guide appropriate surveillance care.

Level of knowledge on low-dose CT lung cancer screening in Sichuan province, China: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Low-dose CT (LDCT) can help determine the early stage of lung cancer and reduce mortality. However, knowledge of lung cancer and lung cancer screening among community residents and medical workers, and potential factors that may affect medical institutions to set up LDCT are limited.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Sichuan province, China, in 2021. Community residents, medical workers and medical institutions were randomly selected, and participants responded to related questionnaires. Knowledge of lung cancer and LDCT lung cancer screening was evaluated. Data analyses were performed using SAS V.9.4.

RESULTS

A total of 35 692 residents, 6350 medical workers and 81 medical institutions were recruited; 4.05% of the residents were very familiar with lung cancer and 37.89% were (completely) unfamiliar. Characteristics, such as age and level of education, were significantly related to residents who were very familiar with lung cancer. Furthermore, 22.87% of the residents knew that LDCT can effectively screen for early-stage lung cancer, which was correlated with smoking (OR 1.1300; 95% CI 1.0540 to 1.2110; p=0.006) and family history of cancer (OR 1.2210; 95% CI 1.1400 to 1.3080; p<0.0001); 66.06% of medical workers believed that LDCT can detect early-stage lung cancer. Technicians and nurses were less knowledgeable than doctors about whether LDCT can effectively screen for early-stage lung cancer (OR 0.6976; 95% CI 0.5399 to 0.9015; p=0.0059 and OR 0.6970; 95% CI 0.5718 to 0.8496; p=0.0004, respectively). Setting up LDCT in medical institutions was related to grade, administrative rank, number of hospital beds that opened and total number of medical workers.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge of lung cancer in residents is relatively low, and the knowledge of LDCT in screening (early-stage) lung cancer needs to be improved both in residents and medical workers. Possible factors that affect medical institutions to set up LDCT may need to be incorporated.

[Low-dose Spiral Computed Tomography in Lung Cancer Screening]

Lung cancer is one of the malignant tumors with the highest morbidity and mortality in the world. The low early diagnosis rate and poor prognosis of patients have caused serious social burden. Regular screening of high-risk population by low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) can significantly improve the early diagnosis rate of lung cancer and bring new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. In recent years, LDCT lung cancer screening programs have been carried out in many countries around the world and achieved good results, but there are still some controversies in the selection of screening subjects, screening frequency, cost effectiveness and other aspects. In this paper, the key factors of LDCT lung cancer screening, screening effect, pulmonary nodule management and artificial intelligence contribution to the development of LDCT will be reviewed, and the application progress of LDCT in lung cancer screening will be discussed.
.

Challenges in initiating a lung cancer screening program: Experiences from two VA medical centers

Establishing a lung cancer screening (LCS) program is an important endeavor that delivers life-saving healthcare to an at-risk population. However, developing a comprehensive LCS program requires critical elements including obtaining institutional level buy-in, hiring necessary personnel, developing appropriate infrastructure and actively engaging primary care providers, subspecialty services, and radiology. The process required to connect such services to deliver an organized LCS program that reaches all eligible candidates must be individualized to each institution's needs and infrastructure. Here we provide detailed experiences from two successful LCS programs, one using a primary care provider-based service and the other using a consult-based service. In each case, we provide the pros and cons of each system. We propose that the decision to setup an ideal LCS program could include a hybrid design that combines aspects of each system.

Nurse practitioner-led lung cancer screening clinic: An evidence-based quality improvement evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography of the chest (LDCT) can reduce mortality associated with lung cancer. LDCT is an under-ordered screening study.

AIMS

To evaluate the use of a nurse practitioner-led lung cancer screening clinic (LCSC).

METHODS

The absolute number of LDCT for lung cancer screenings obtained 12 months before implementing the nurse practitioner-led LCSC was compared to the 12 months after clinic implementation using a casual comparison design. An electronic survey was conducted to assess the LCSC key stakeholders' perceptions of the clinic.

RESULTS

An increase of 60% in the total number of LDCT for lung cancer screenings was observed. Qualitative data obtained through stakeholder evaluation of the clinic revealed that 85% of participants (n = 13) expressed that the LCSC was addressing barriers to lung cancer screening.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

A dedicated nurse practitioner-led LCSC is a practical way to increase lung cancer screening by addressing established barriers to screening in the community setting.

Perceived effectiveness of cancer screening among family medicine and internal medicine physicians in the United States

•

There are limited data on family medicine and internal medicine physicians’ beliefs regarding perceived cancer screening effectiveness.

•

Perceiving specific cancer screening tests as very effective differed in some cases by gender, age, graduation year, and race/ethnicity.

•

Physicians’ perceived effectiveness about cancer screening tests varies widely and may influence their recommendations or usage of these tests.

•

Understanding physicians’ beliefs on screening effectiveness can help improve uptake of evidence-based screening by providers and patients to promote early detection and successful treatment.

Family and internal medicine physicians play an important role in cancer screening, yet there are limited data on their beliefs regarding effectiveness of screening tests, which may affect physicians’ likelihood to recommend such tests. The study purpose was to assess current beliefs among family medicine and internal medicine physicians regarding effectiveness of various types of cancer screening. A national sample of 582 physicians from the American Medical Association’s Physician Masterfile were surveyed. Participants were asked about their perceived effectiveness of screening for colon, lung, breast, prostate, and cervical cancer among average, healthy individuals. Chi-square tests were conducted to assess relationships between perceiving screening tests to be ‘very effective in reducing cancer-related mortality’ and demographic characteristics. A substantial majority of physicians perceived colonoscopy (83.8%) and Pap smear (82.9%) to be very effective. Perceiving low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), Pap smear, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as ‘very effective’ differed by gender, with females less likely to endorse LDCT and Pap smear but more likely to endorse PSA. Perceiving PSA as ‘very effective’ differed by age and graduation year, with younger or more recently graduated physicians being less likely to perceive PSA as ‘very effective’. Non-Hispanic Black/African-American physicians were more likely to perceive mammography as ‘very effective’ than other groups. Physicians’ perceived effectiveness about cancer screening tests varies widely and may influence their recommendations or usage of these tests. Understanding physicians’ beliefs can help in improving uptake of evidence-based screening tests by providers and patients to promote early detection and successful treatment.

Referring high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening: A systematic review of interventions with healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review described the effect of interventions aimed at helping Healthcare Professionals refer high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening. Primary outcomes included: patient outcomes such as lung cancer detection, screening for lung cancer, lung cancer treatments received and lung cancer mortality. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and awareness of lung cancer screening served as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

Experimental studies published between January 2016 and 2021 were included. The search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, PsycInfo and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the level of evidence was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Nurse navigation, electronic prompts for lung cancer screening and shared decision-making helped improve patient outcomes. Specialist screenings yielded more significant incidental findings and a higher percentage of Lung-RADS 1 results (i.e. no nodules/definitely benign nodules), while Primary Care Physician screenings were associated with higher numbers of Lung-RADS 2 results (i.e. benign nodules with a very low likelihood to becoming malignant). An increase in Healthcare Professionals' knowledge and awareness of lung cancer screening was achieved using group-based learning compared to lecture-based education delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of Nurse navigation is evident, as are the benefits of adequate training, shared decision-making, as well as a structured, clear and well-understood referral processes supported by the use of electronic system-incorporated prompts.

Implementation and Uptake of Rural Lung Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

Given the higher rates of tobacco use along with increased mortality specific to lung cancer in rural settings, low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening could be particularly beneficial to such populations. However, limited radiology facilities and increased geographical distance, combined with lower income and education along with reduced patient engagement, present heightened barriers to screening initiation and adherence.

METHODS

In collaboration with community leaders and stakeholders, we developed and implemented a community-based lung cancer screening program, including telephone-based navigation and tobacco cessation counseling support, serving 18 North Texas counties. Funding was available to support clinical services costs where needed. We collected data on LDCT referrals, orders, and completion.

RESULTS

To raise awareness for lung cancer screening, we leveraged our established collaborative network of more than 700 community partners. In the first year of operation, 107 medical providers referred 570 patients for lung cancer screening, of whom 488 (86%) were eligible for LDCT. The most common reasons for ineligibility were age (43%) and insufficient tobacco history (20%). Of 381 ordered LDCTs, 334 (88%) were completed. Among screened patients, 61% were current smokers and 36% had insurance coverage for the procedure. The program cost per patient was $430.

DISCUSSION

Implementation, uptake, and completion of LDCT-based lung cancer screening is feasible in rural settings. Community outreach, health promotion, and algorithm-based navigation may support such efforts. Given low lung cancer screening rates nationally and heightened lung cancer risk in rural populations, similar programs in other regions may be particularly impactful.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Guidelines Negligibly Impacted Repair Rates in Male Never-Smokers and Female Smokers

OBJECTIVE

In 2014, in addition to male smokers aged 65-75, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening for male never-smokers aged 65-75 with cardiovascular risk factors (Grade C). The USPSTF evolved from a negative to neutral position on screening for female smokers aged 65-75 (Grade I). We sought to determine whether 2014 guidelines resulted in more AAA repairs in these populations.

METHODS

We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative national database (2013-2018) for elective endovascular aortic repairs and open aortic repairs. We implemented difference-in-differences (DID) analysis, a causal inference technique that adjusts for secular time trends, to isolate changes in repair numbers due to the 2014 USPSTF guidelines. Our DID models compared changes in repair numbers in patient groups targeted by the USPSTF updates (intervention group) to those in unaffected, older patient groups (control), before and after 2014. The first model compared changes in repair numbers between male never-smokers aged 65-75 (intervention group) and 76-85 (control). The second model compared repair numbers between female smokers aged 65-75 (intervention group) and 76-85 (control).

RESULTS

There was no significant change in male never-smokers (n=1,295) aged 65-75 (42%) vs. 76-85 (58%) undergoing AAA repairs after guideline updates, averaged over 4.5 years (+2.4 percentage points; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] -.56-5.26). However, when their primary insurer was Medicare, male never-smokers aged 65-75 compared with 76-85 underwent significantly more repairs over 4.5 years (+3.69 percentage points; 95% CI.16-7.22; representing a 10.4% relative increase from baseline in the proportion of male never-smokers on Medicare undergoing AAA repair). Comparing female smokers (n=2,312) aged 65-75 (54%) vs. 76-85 (46%), there was no significant change in repairs over 4.5 years (-.66 percentage points; 95% CI -4.57-3.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The USPSTF 2014 AAA guidelines were associated with modestly increased repairs in male never-smokers aged 65-75 only on Medicare. There was no impact among female smokers. Higher-grade recommendations and improved guideline adherence may be requisites for change.

A Lung Cancer Screening Education Program Impacts both Referral Rates and Provider and Medical Assistant Knowledge at Two Federally Qualified Health Centers

BACKGROUND

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve minority and low-socioeconomic populations and provide care to high-risk smokers. These centers frequently experience barriers, including low provider and medical assistant (MA) knowledge around lung cancer screening (LCS). Subsequent low LCS referral rates by providers at FQHCs limit utilization of LCS in eligible, high-risk, underserved patients.

METHODS

Providers and MAs from two FQHCs participated in a LCS educational session. A pre-educational survey was administered at the start of the session and a post-educational survey at the end. The intervention included a presentation with education around non-small cell lung cancer, LCS, tobacco cessation, and shared-decision making. Both surveys were used to evaluate changes in provider and MA ability to determine eligible patients for LCS. The Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction was used to measure the impact.

RESULTS

A total of 29 providers and 28 MAs enrolled in the study from two FQHCs. There was an improvement, P < .009 and P < .015 respectively, in provider and MA confidence in identifying patients for LCS. Additionally, one year prior to the program, 9 low-dose computed tomography (LDCTs) were ordered at one of the FQHCs and 0 at the other. After the program, over 100 LDCTs were ordered at each FQHC.

CONCLUSIONS

A targeted LCS educational program improves provider and MAs' ability to identify eligible LCS patients and is associated with an increase in the number of patients referred to LDCT at FQHCs.

Racial Differences in Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2013 the United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) instituted recommendations for annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose chest computed tomography for high-risk individuals. LCS reduces lung cancer mortality, with greater reduction observed in Black participants in clinical trials. While racial disparities in lung cancer mortality have been well documented, less is known about disparities in LCS participation and adherence to follow-up in clinical practice.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the association between race and adherence to LCS follow-up?

STUDY DESIGN & METHODS

A systematic review was conducted through a search of published studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Database, from database inception through October 2020. We included studies that examined rates of adherence to LCS follow-up and compared rates by race. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We screened 18,300 titles/abstracts and 229 studies were selected for full-text review. Nine studies met inclusion criteria; seven were included in the meta-analysis. Median adherent follow-up rate was 37% (range 16-82%). Notable differences among the studies included the proportion of the Black population (range 4-47%) and the structure of the LCS programs. The meta-analyses showed lower adherence to LCS follow-up in the Black population (Odds Ratio [OR]=0.67, [95% CI: 0.55, 0.80]). This disparity persisted across all malignancy risk levels determined by initial screening results.

INTERPRETATION

There is lower adherence to LCS follow-up in Black compared to White patients despite the higher potential lung cancer mortality benefit. Literature specifically addressing race-related barriers to LCS adherence is still limited. To ensure equity in LCS benefits, greater outreach to eligible Black patients should be implemented through increased physician education and utilization of screening program coordinators to focus on this patient population.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.

Perceptions of lung cancer screening and smoking behavior change among Chinese immigrants: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among Chinese immigrants in the US. Smoking cessation and lung cancer screening are effective ways to decrease lung cancer mortality. This study aims to investigate Chinese immigrants' perceptions of lung cancer screening and to explore the factors/barriers associated with their smoking behavior/cessation.

METHODS

A systematic review design with narrative methods was used. Electronic literature databases, including PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched.

RESULTS

A total of 11 articles met the search criteria. Methodological rigor of the studies was evaluated by Bowling's checklist and Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. Data search revealed that a limited amount of research has been done on Chinese immigrants' perceptions of lung cancer screening. Factors influencing their smoking behavior included personal characteristics, psychological status, acculturation, and cues from external environment. Barriers to their smoking cessation behavior included language barriers, individual's unwillingness to use smoking cessation assistance methods, healthcare environment's insufficiency to counter pro-smoking norms, lack of social support, and wrong personal beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study could help healthcare providers to design culturally tailored lung cancer screening programs and smoking cessation projects to decrease morbidity and mortality rates of lung cancer among Chinese immigrants.

Primary care and pulmonary physicians' knowledge and practice concerning screening for lung cancer in Lebanon, a middle-income country

Background

Screening for lung cancer with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer incidence and overall mortality, and it has been recently included in international guidelines. Despite the rising burden of lung cancer in low and middle‐income countries (LMICs) such as Lebanon, little is known about what primary care physicians or pulmonologists know and think about LDCT as a screening procedure for lung cancer, and if they recommend it.

Objectives

Evaluate the knowledge about LDCT and implementation of international guidelines for lung cancer screening among Lebanese primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonary specialists.

Methodology

PCPs and PUs based in Lebanon were surveyed concerning knowledge and practices related to lung cancer screening by self‐administered paper questionnaires.

Results

73.8% of PCPs and 60.7% of pulmonary specialists recognized LDCT as an effective tool for lung cancer screening, with 63.6% of PCPs and 71% of pulmonary specialists having used it for screening. However, only 23.4% of PCPs and 14.5% of pulmonary specialists recognized the eligibility criteria for screening. Chest X‐ray was recognized as ineffective by only 55.8% of PCPs and 40.7% of pulmonary specialists; indeed, 30.2% of PCPs and 46% of pulmonary specialists continue using it for screening. The majority have initiated a discussion about the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening.

Conclusion

PCPs and pulmonary specialists are initiating discussions and ordering LDCT for lung cancer screening. However, a significant proportion of both specialties are still using a non‐recommended screening tool (chest x‐ray); only few PCPs and pulmonary specialists recognized the population at risk for which screening is recommended. Targeted provider education is needed to close the knowledge gap and promote proper implementation of guidelines for lung cancer screening.

Assessment and Efficacy of Low-Dose CT Screening and Primary Care Providers Perspective on Lung Cancer Screening: An Institutional Review

Lung cancer is the most common cause of death in both men and women. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual lung screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) chest for individuals aged 55-80 who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients visiting our outpatient clinic over a period of one year. We included all eligible individuals according to USPSTF guidelines for LDCT to identify screening rates at our institution. All primary care physicians, including residents and attendings, were given a prepared questionnaire to understand their beliefs and concerns with the implementation of this program. A total of 13,500 patients visited the outpatient clinic and 1178 were eligible for LDCT. Forty-five percent (45%) of patients received LDCT screening, which was higher than the national average of 2%-5%. A total of 50 primary care providers were included in the survey. The majority of the providers were aware of the USPSTF guidelines and believed that patients with multiple comorbidities and insurance issues were barriers in initiating LDCT screening. Lung cancer screening is an important component in cancer preventive strategies. Widespread awareness among the primary care providers and the public is extremely necessary for improving the use of LDCT.

Perceptions of and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Among Physicians in Puerto Rico: A Qualitative Study

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), an accepted U.S. screening tool for early lung cancer detection, is not widely-used in Puerto Rico. We investigated knowledge and attitudes about LDCT in focus groups of primary care physicians (PCP) and individuals at high risk for lung cancer (HRI) in Puerto Rico. Transcribed/translated audio-recorded discussions were analyzed with the constant comparison method. Both groups had limited knowledge about LDCT and concerns regarding insurance coverage. Most HRIs had never had a provider recommend LDCT and believed that having symptoms was necessary to obtain LDCT screening. Perceived barriers included fears about results and the procedure; a perceived benefit was having early detection and possibly being cured. Few PCPs had ever recommended LDCT to a patient, with those who had basing their decision on symptoms/smoking history but having challenges with insurance. More education on LDCT is needed among HRIs, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines should be widely distributed to encourage physician recommendations.

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.

Improving Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Through Incorporating a Video-Based Educational Tool Into Smoking Cessation Counseling

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, but most of those eligible are not referred for screening, and most eligible smokers are not aware of LCS. Smoking cessation counseling may be an opportune time to educate smokers about LCS. Here we investigate the effect of LCS educational information on LDCT utilization and smoking cessation in LCS-eligible patients receiving smoking cessation counseling.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomized 1281 smokers aged 55-80 who underwent smoking cessation services to view a web-based educational video about LCS (n = 1026) or to receive usual care (n = 255). Outcomes included the utilization of chest computed tomographic (CT) scan during 6 months of follow-up, responses to survey questions, and patient-reported abstinence from smoking at 6 months.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six participants (14%) watched the video. Overall, 87 participants (8.5%) in the intervention group underwent any chest CT and 37 (3.6%) underwent LDCT compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in the control group during the 6-month follow-up period (P = .94 and .59, respectively). Among participants who completed watching the video, 27 (18.5%) underwent any chest CT and 13 (8.9%) underwent LDCT, compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in controls during follow-up (P = .0037 and .062, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence from smoking between groups.

CONCLUSION

An LCS educational intervention may be effective in improving utilization of LDCT in eligible individuals who currently smoke at the time of smoking cessation counseling. Further research on the effect of LCS education in the context of smoking cessation counseling is needed.

Clinician Variation in Ordering and Completion of Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Medical System

BACKGROUND

Less than 5% of eligible individuals in the United States undergo lung cancer screening. Variation in clinicians' participation in lung cancer screening has not been determined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied medical providers who ordered ≥ 1 low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening from February 2017 through February 2019 in an integrated safety-net healthcare system. We analyzed associations between provider characteristics and LDCT orders and completion using chi-square, Fisher exact, and Student t tests, as well as ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among an estimated 194 adult primary care physicians, 144 (74%) ordered at least 1 LDCT, as did 39 specialists. These 183 medical providers ordered 1594 LDCT (median, 4; interquartile range, 2-9). In univariate and multivariate models, family practice providers (P < .001) and providers aged ≥ 50 years (P = .03) ordered more LDCT than did other clinicians. Across providers, the median proportion of ordered LDCT that were completed was 67%. The total or preceding number of LDCT ordered by a clinician was not associated with the likelihood of LDCT completion.

CONCLUSION

In an integrated safety-net healthcare system, most adult primary care providers order LDCT. The number of LDCT ordered varies widely among clinicians, and a substantial proportion of ordered LDCT are not completed.

[Progress of Lung Cancer Screening with Low Dose Helical Computed Tomography]

Lung cancer which represents characteristics of a heavy disease burden, a large proportion of advanced lung cancer and a low five-year survival rate is a threat to human health. It is essential to implement population-based lung cancer screening to improve early detection and early treatment. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that screening with low dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) may decrease lung cancer mortality, which brings hope for the early diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. In recent years, great progresses have been made on research of lung cancer screening with LDCT. However, whether LDCT could be applied to large population-based lung cancer screening projects is still under debate. In this paper, we review the recent progresses on history of lung cancer screening with LDCT, selection of high-risk individuals, management of pulmonary nodules, performance of screening, acceptance of LDCT and cost-effectiveness.
.

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.

Low Provider Knowledge Is Associated With Less Evidence-Based Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread recommendation and supportive policies, screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is incompletely implemented in the US healthcare system. Low provider knowledge of the lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines represents a potential barrier to implementation. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that low provider knowledge of guidelines is associated with less provider-reported screening with LDCT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed in a large academic medical center and affiliated Veterans Health Administration in the Mid-South United States that comprises hospital and community-based practices. Participants included general medicine providers and specialists who treat patients aged >50 years. The primary exposure was LCS guideline knowledge (US Preventive Services Task Force/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). High knowledge was defined as identifying 3 major screening eligibility criteria (55 years as initial age of screening eligibility, smoking status as current or former smoker, and smoking history of ≥30 pack-years), and low knowledge was defined as not identifying these 3 criteria. The primary outcome was self-reported LDCT order/referral within the past year, and the secondary outcome was screening chest radiograph. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of screening by knowledge.

RESULTS

Of 625 providers recruited, 407 (65%) responded, and 378 (60.5%) were analyzed. Overall, 233 providers (62%) demonstrated low LCS knowledge, and 224 (59%) reported ordering/referring for LDCT. The aOR of ordering/referring LDCT was less among providers with low knowledge (0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.71) than among those with high knowledge. More providers with low knowledge reported ordering screening chest radiographs (aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.0) within the past year.

CONCLUSIONS

Referring provider knowledge of LCS guidelines is low and directly proportional to the ordering rate for LDCT in an at-risk US population. Strategies to advance evidence-based LCS should incorporate provider education and system-level interventions to address gaps in provider knowledge.

Barriers to and Interest in Lung Cancer Screening Among Latino and Non-Latino Current and Former Smokers

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in Latinos. In a telephone survey, we assessed perceptions about lung cancer and awareness of, interest in, and barriers to lung screening among older current and former smokers. We compared Latino and non-Latino responses adjusting for age, sex, education, and smoking status using logistic regression models. Of the 460 patients who completed the survey (51.5% response rate), 58.0% were women, 49.3% former smokers, 15.7% Latino, with mean age 63.6 years. More Latinos believed that lung cancer could be prevented compared to non-Latinos (74.6% vs. 48.2%, OR 3.07, CI 1.89-5.01), and less worried about developing lung cancer (34.8% vs. 50.3%, OR 0.44, CI 0.27-0.72). Most participants were not aware of lung screening (44.1% Latinos vs. 34.3% Non-Latinos, OR 1.24, CI 0.79-1.94), but when informed, more Latinos wanted to be screened (90.7% vs. 67%, OR 4.58, CI 2.31-9.05). Latinos reported fewer barriers to lung screening.

Brief Education and a Conjoint Valuation Survey May Reduce Decisional Conflict Regarding Lung Cancer Screening

Background. Recent data and policy decisions have led to the availability of lung cancer screening (LCS) for individuals who are at increased risk of developing lung cancer. In establishing implementation policies, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required that individuals who meet eligibility criteria for LCS receive a patient counseling and shared decision-making consultation prior to LCS. Methods. This study evaluated the potential of a values clarification/preference elicitation exercise and brief educational intervention to reduce decisional conflict regarding LCS. Participants (N = 210) completing a larger online survey responded to a measure of decisional conflict prior to and following administration of a conjoint survey and brief educational narrative about LCS. The conjoint survey included 22 choice sets (two of which were holdout cards), incorporating 5 attributes with 17 levels. Results. Results pertaining to changes in decisional conflict showed that participants reported statistically significantly and clinically meaningful reductions in decisional conflict following administration of the brief educational narrative and conjoint survey across the total score (Δ = 29.30; d = 1.09) and all four decisional conflict subscales: Uncertainty (Δ = 27.75; d = 0.73), Informed (Δ = 35.32; d = 1.11), Values Clarity (Δ = 31.82; d = 0.85), and Support (Δ = 18.78; d = 0.66). Discussion. While the study design precludes differentiating the effects of the brief educational narrative and the conjoint survey, data suggest that these tools offer a reasonable approach to clarifying personal beliefs and perspectives regarding LCS participation. Given the complicated nature of LCS decisions and recent policies advocating informed and shared decision-making approaches, conjoint surveys should be evaluated as one of the tools that could help individuals make choices about LCS participation.

Barriers, Facilitators, and Suggested Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening Among a Rural Screening-Eligible Population

Introduction: Rural areas are disproportionally affected by lung cancer late-stage incidence and mortality. Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended to find lung cancer early and reduce mortality, yet uptake is low. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the barriers to, facilitators of, and suggested interventions for increasing LCS among a rural screening-eligible population using a mixed methods concurrent embedded design study. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from rural-residing adults who met the eligibility criteria for LCS but who were not up-to-date with LCS recommendations. Study participants (n = 23) took part in 1 of 5 focus groups and completed a survey. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded through a mixed deductive and inductive approach. Survey data were used to enhance and clarify focus group results; these data were integrated in the design and during analysis, in accordance with the mixed methods concurrent embedded design approach. Results: Several key barriers to LCS were identified, including an overall lack of knowledge about LCS, not receiving information or recommendation from a health care provider, and lack of transportation. Key facilitators were receiving a provider recommendation and high motivation to know the screening results. Participants suggested that LCS uptake could be increased by addressing provider understanding and recommendation of LCS and conducting community outreach to promote LCS awareness and access. Conclusion: The results suggest that the rural screening-eligible population is generally receptive to LCS. Patient-level factors important to getting this population screened include knowledge, transportation, motivation to know their screening results, and receiving information or recommendation from a provider. Addressing these factors may be important to increase rural LCS uptake.

The Patient Perspective on Lung Cancer Screening and Health Disparities

Lung cancer screening is just starting to be implemented across the United States. Challenges to screening include access to care, awareness of the option for screening, stigma and implicit bias that are due to stigmatization of smoking, stigma of race, nihilism with lung cancer diagnosis viewed as a "death sentence," shared decision making, and underestimation of lung cancer risk. African Americans (AA) have the highest lung cancer mortality rate in the United States despite similar smoking rates as whites. AAs are diagnosed at a later stage, and there is a greater likelihood they will refuse treatment options when diagnosed. Additionally, fewer AAs were found to meet lung cancer screening eligibility criteria compared with whites because of lower tobacco exposure and younger age at time of diagnosis. Outreach and access for lung cancer screening in the AA community and other subpopulations at risk are critical to avoid further increasing disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality as lung cancer screening is implemented across the United States. The path forward requires implementing outreach programs and providing lung cancer screening in underserved communities at high risk for lung cancer; consideration of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for screening selection criteria, including risk model screening selection; and developing interventions to address stigma, clinician implicit bias, and nihilism.

Primary care providers' views on a future lung cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening with low-dose computed tomography significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer in high-risk individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the role preferences and information needs of primary care providers (PCPs) in a future organized lung cancer screening program.

METHODS

We purposively sampled PCPs from diverse health regions of Ontario and from different practice models including family health teams and community health centres. We also recruited family physicians with a leadership role in cancer screening. We used focus groups and a nominal group process to identify informational priorities. Two analysts systematically applied a coding scheme to interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Four groups were held with 34 providers and administrative staff [28 (82%) female, 21 (62%) physicians, 7 (20%) other health professionals and 6 (18%) administrative staff]. PCPs and staff were generally positive about a potential lung cancer screening program but had variable views on their involvement. Informational needs included evidence of potential benefits and harms of screening. Most providers preferred that a new program be modelled on positive features of an existing breast cancer screening program. Lung cancer screening was viewed as a new opportunity to counsel patients about smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a future lung cancer screening program should consider the wide variability in the roles that PCPs preferred. An explicit link to existing smoking cessation programs was seen as essential. As providers had significant information needs, learning materials and opportunities should be developed with them.

Use of an Anthropomorphic Chest Model to Evaluate Multiple Scanning Protocols for High-Definition and Standard-Definition Computed Tomography to Detect Small Pulmonary Nodules

BACKGROUND This study aimed to use the LUNGMAN N1 anthropomorphic chest model to evaluate protocols for high-definition computed tomography (HDCT) and standard-definition CT (SDCT) to detect and compare small pulmonary nodules and determine the most appropriate low-dose scanning protocols. MATERIAL AND METHODS HDCT imaging used the Discovery HD750 scanner (80, 100, 120 and 140 kVp; 360, 320, 280, 240, 200, 160, 120, 80, 40, and 20 mA), and SDCT imaging used the Lightspeed VCT scanner (80, 120, and 140 kVp; 360, 320, 280, 240, 200, 160, 120, 80, 40, and 20 mA). The LUNGMAN N1 anthropomorphic chest model contained artificial pulmonary nodules (diameter: 5, 8, 10, and 12 mm). Low-dose scanning protocols were used in image acquisition. Two experienced radiologists evaluated the image quality. The combinations of voltage, tube current, image noise, and radiation dose were recorded. Consistency of the image quality between raters was assessed by kappa statistical analysis. RESULTS Seventy CT scans of pulmonary nodules (diameter, 5-12 mm) were performed. There was a high degree of consistency for image quality between the two observers (K=0.929 for 5 mm nodules; K=0.819 for overall image quality). For 8 mm nodules, 100% were detected on both SDCT and HDCT. HDCT outperformed SDCT by 5%, in terms of effective dose. There was no significant difference in image quality between the SDCT and HDCT scanners. CONCLUSIONS Using an anthropomorphic chest model, the identification and image quality using SDCT was similar to that of HDCT for small pulmonary nodules between 5-12 mm.

[Lung cancer screening among the smoker population]

CONTEXT

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in men and the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. This cancer, often diagnosed at an advanced stage, mainly affects smokers and survival could increase with early detection. Screening by chest x-ray has not shown its effectiveness, then several randomized trials have been carried out about screening by thoracic low-dose computed tomography in smokers.

METHODS

A systematic review of these trials was conducted according to the PRISMA criteria as well as a point of the difficulties of setting up screening following these trials.

RESULTS

Among five trials that published mortality results, only the US one, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was showed a 20% decrease in lung cancer mortality in smokers screened by low-dose computed tomography compared to chest x-ray. However, besides the lack of power of the other trials, a great heterogeneity of the methods makes the synthesis of the results difficult. While many expert groups are in favor of testing, only the United States has implemented a screening program, whose adherence remains low.

CONCLUSION

Many persistent questions about the eligible population, the organization, the side effects, and finally the cost-benefit, need additional research around these issues.

Lung cancer screening: Practice guidelines and insurance coverage are not enough

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is expected to increase early detection of lung cancer and improve survival. The growth in the number of advanced nurse practitioners (NPs) in primary care settings increases the likelihood that an NP will serve as a patient's provider. This study's purpose was to examine knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding LDCT among NPs who work in primary care settings.

METHODS

An explanatory, sequential, mixed-method design used a 32-item questionnaire, followed by a semi-structured telephone interview. The development of the survey and interview questions were guided by a conceptual framework representing a temporal sequence for behavior change and potential barriers to guideline adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse practitioners believe that shared decision making with their high-risk patients about LDCT is within their scope of their practice. Working in time-constrained primary care settings, NPs have limited abilities to improve the uptake of LDCT. Substantial patient barriers exist that deter follow through on providers' recommendation. Disseminating guidelines and authorizing health insurance reimbursement is insufficient.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Research is needed that investigates the screening process so that barriers can be closely studied. Culture change is needed where early detection has greater value for insurers, providers, and patients.

Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Engagement from the Patient and Provider Perspective

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT reduces mortality among high-risk current and former smokers and has been covered by public and private insurers without cost sharing since 2015. Patients and referring providers confront numerous barriers to participation in screening. To best serve in multidisciplinary efforts to expand LCS nationwide, radiologists must be knowledgeable of these challenges. A better understanding of the difficulties confronted by other stakeholders will help radiologists continue to collaboratively guide the growth of LCS programs in their communities. This article reviews barriers to participation in LCS for patients and referring providers, as well as possible solutions and interventions currently underway.

The complicated 'Yes': Decision-making processes and receptivity to lung cancer screening among head and neck cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended when offering lung cancer screening (LCS)-which presents challenges with tobacco-related cancer survivors because they were excluded from clinical trials. Our objective was to characterize head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward LCS and SDM.

METHODS

Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 HNC survivors, focusing on patients' cancer and smoking history, receptivity to and perceptions of LCS, and decision-making preferences RESULTS: Participants were receptive to LCS, referencing their successful HNC outcomes. They perceived that LCS might reduce uncertainty and emphasized the potential benefits of early diagnosis. Some expressed concern over costs or overdiagnosis, but most minimized potential harms, including false positives and radiation exposure. Participants preferred in-person LCS discussions, often ideally with their cancer specialist.

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

HNC survivors may have overly optimistic expectations for LCS, and clinicians need to account for this in SDM discussions. Supporting these patients in making informed decisions will be challenging because we lack clinical data on the potential benefits and harms of LCS for cancer survivors. While some patients prefer discussing LCS with their cancer specialists, the ability of specialists to support high-quality decision making is uncertain.

Comprehensive analysis of marker gene detection and computed tomography for the diagnosis of human lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of leading causes of cancer-associated mortality, with a high number of cases caused by metastasis. The early diagnosis of cancer contributes to the successful treatment of patients with lung cancer. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of marker gene detection and computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing human lung cancer. Lung cancer marker genes, including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA), pro-gastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRB), cytokeratin fragment 21-1 (Cyfra21-1) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE), were analyzed in patients with lung cancer. The tumor size was evaluated using CT, and the association between lung serum levels of marker gene protein expression and tumor size was investigated. A total of 328 patients with lung cancer were identified, including 204 adenocarcinoma, 75 large cell carcinoma and 49 squamous cell carcinoma cases. All patients were indicated to have a high serum level of CEA, CA125, TPA, ProGRB, Cyfra21-1 and NSE, compared with the normal range. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated higher expression levels of CEA, CA125, TPA, ProGRB, Cyfra21-1 and NSE in lung tumor tissues, compared with the normal range. Results indicated that CT was able to diagnose tumor size for patients with lung cancer. The CEA and CA125 expression levels were associated with CT-diagnosed adenocarcinoma tumor size. Large cell carcinoma tumor size was associated with serum levels of CEA, TPA and ProGRB. Results indicated that Cyfra21-1 and NSE were associated with the squamous cell carcinoma cases, as demonstrated using CT. In conclusion, these results indicated that comprehensive analysis of marker gene detection and CT results may be used to diagnose human lung cancer.

Shared decision-making conversations and smoking cessation interventions: critical components of low-dose CT lung cancer screening programs

Lung cancer remains the world's deadliest cancer despite efforts to decrease smoking rates. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer deaths by 20%. Screening with LDCT comes with potential harms including a high rate of false-positive test results, subsequent follow-up procedures, and radiation exposure. For some patients, the potential benefits associated with screening may be outweighed by the harms. The decision to screen must therefore take into consideration patients' risk of developing lung cancer, comorbidities that may prevent diagnostic procedures or curative surgery, and their values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of screening. A process called shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as a crucial feature of LCS. SDM is a patient-centered approach where healthcare providers provide best clinical evidence and then work together with patients to discern if the screening process aligns with the patient's values and preferences. Unfortunately, clinician SDM skills are often of poor quality which can lead to patients making uninformed decisions. Decision support tools that help patients make informed decisions and increase SDM on LCS are available. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a coverage memo for LCS that contained an unprecedented requirement: an initial patient counseling and SDM visit with the use of at least one decision aid must occur for screening services to be reimbursed. This review focuses on SDM and suggests ways to increase the prevalence and effectiveness of SDM in LCS programs. Stopping smoking greatly reduces a person's risk for developing lung cancer, and smoking cessation messages in LCS guidelines from major medical organizations and interventions in LCS programs are explored. LCS has come of age; so too has SDM as it is an integral part of LCS programs.

Progress in the Management of Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in 2017

The landscape of care for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer continues to evolve. While some of the developments do not seem as dramatic as what has occurred in advanced disease in recent years, there is a continuous improvement in our ability to diagnose disease earlier and more accurately. We have an increased understanding of the diversity of early-stage disease and how to better tailor treatments to make them more tolerable without impacting efficacy. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and the Journal of Thoracic Oncology publish this annual update to help readers keep pace with these important developments. Experts in the care of early-stage lung cancer patients have provided focused updates across multiple areas including screening, pathology, staging, surgical techniques and novel technologies, adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy, surveillance, disparities, and quality of life. The source for information includes large academic meetings, the published literature, or novel unpublished data from other international oncology assemblies.