Poor Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: Opportunities for Improvement

Development of an Electronic Health Record Self-Referral Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: One-Group Posttest Study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 14 million individuals in the United States are eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS), but only 5.8% completed screening in 2021. Given the low uptake despite the potential great health benefit of LCS, interventions aimed at increasing uptake are warranted. The use of a patient-facing electronic health record (EHR) patient portal direct messaging tool offers a new opportunity to both engage eligible patients in preventative screening and provide a unique referral pathway for tobacco treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to develop and pilot an EHR patient-facing self-referral tool for an established LCS program in an academic medical center.

METHODS

Guided by constructs of the Health Belief Model associated with LCS uptake (eg, knowledge and self-efficacy), formative development of an EHR-delivered engagement message, infographic, and self-referring survey was conducted. The survey submits eligible self-reported patient information to a scheduler for the LCS program. The materials were pretested using an interviewer-administered mixed methods survey captured through venue-day-time sampling in 5 network-affiliated pulmonology clinics. Materials were then integrated into the secure patient messaging feature in the EHR system. Next, a one-group posttest quality improvement pilot test was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 17 individuals presenting for lung screening shared-decision visits completed the pretest survey. More than half were newly referred for LCS (n=10, 60%), and the remaining were returning patients. When asked if they would use a self-referring tool through their EHR messaging portal, 94% (n=16) reported yes. In it, 15 participants provided oral feedback that led to refinement in the tool and infographic prior to pilot-testing. When the initial application of the tool was sent to a convenience sample of 150 random patients, 13% (n=20) opened the self-referring survey. Of the 20 who completed the pilot survey, 45% (n=9) were eligible for LCS based on self-reported smoking data. A total of 3 self-referring individuals scheduled an LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretest and initial application data suggest this tool is a positive stimulus to trigger the decision-making process to engage in a self-referral process to LCS among eligible patients. This self-referral tool may increase the number of patients engaging in LCS and could also be used to aid in self-referral to other preventative health screenings. This tool has implications for clinical practice. Tobacco treatment clinical services or health care systems should consider using EHR messaging for LCS self-referral. This approach may be cost-effective to improve LCS engagement and uptake. Additional referral pathways could be built into this EHR tool to not only refer patients who currently smoke to LCS but also simultaneously trigger a referral to clinical tobacco treatment.

Telemedicine-Enhanced Lung Cancer Screening Using Mobile Computed Tomography Unit with Remote Artificial Intelligence Assistance in Underserved Communities: Initial Results of a Population Cohort Study in Western China

Introduction: Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths globally. Despite favorable recommendations, low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung screening adoption remains low in China. Barriers such as limited infrastructure, costs, distance, and personnel shortages restrict screening access in disadvantaged regions. We initiated a telemedicine-enabled lung cancer screening (LCS) program in a medical consortium to serve people at risk in underserved communities. The objective of this study was to describe the implementation and initial results of the program. Methods: From 2020 to 2021, individuals aged 40-80 years were invited to take LCS by mobile computed tomography (CT) units in three underserved areas in Western China. Numerous CT scans were remotely reported by radiologists aided by artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic systems. Abnormal cases were tracked through an integrated hospital network for follow-up. A retrospective cohort study documented participant demographics, health history, LDCT results, and outcomes. Descriptive analysis was conducted to report baseline characteristics and first-year follow-up results. Results: Of the 28,728 individuals registered in the program, 19,517 (67.94%) participated in the screening. The study identified 2.68% of participants with high-risk pulmonary nodules and diagnosed 0.55% with lung cancer after a 1-year follow-up. The majority of high-risk participants received timely treatment in hospitals. Conclusions: This study demonstrated mobile CT units with remote AI assistance improved access to LCS in underserved areas, with high participation and early detection rates. Our implementation supports the feasibility of deploying telemedicine-enabled LCS to increase access to a large scale of basic radiology and diagnostic services in resource-limited settings. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR1900024623.

Screening behaviors of high-risk individuals for lung cancer: A cross-sectional study

Objective

To investigate current screening behaviors among high-risk individuals and analyse the factors that influence them.

Methods

A cross-sectional of 1652 high-risk individuals were recruited in Fujian Province, China from February to October 2022. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants were collected and other survey measures included a lung cancer and lung cancer screening knowledge questionnaire and a stage of adoption algorithm. Standardized measures on surveys were comprised of the: Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales, Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and the Patient Trust in the Medical Profession Scale. Factors associated with screening behavior were identified using binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

Lung cancer screening behavior stages were largely reported as Stage 1 and Stage 2 (64.4%). The facilitators of lung cancer screening included urban residence (OR = 1.717, 95% CI: 1.224-2.408), holding administrative positions (OR = 16.601, 95% CI: 2.118-130.126), previous lung cancer screening behavior (OR = 10.331, 95% CI: 7.463-14.302), media exposure focused on lung cancer screening (OR = 1.868, 95% CI: 1.344-2.596), a high level of knowledge about lung cancer and lung cancer screening (OR = 1.256, 95% CI: 1.185-1.332), perceived risk of lung cancer (OR = 1.123, 95% CI: 1.029-1.225) and lung cancer screening health beliefs (OR = 1.090, 95% CI: 1.067-1.113). A barrier to lung cancer screening was found to be social influence (influence of friends or family) (OR = 0.669, 95% CI: 0.465-0.964).

Conclusions

This study found a low participation rate in lung cancer screening and identified eight factors that affected lung cancer screening behaviors among high-risk individuals. Findings suggest targeted lung cancer screening programs should be developed based on identified influencing factors in order to effectively promote awareness and uptake of lung cancer screening.

Is low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening conveniently accessible in China? A spatial analysis based on cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Regular Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer high-risk population has been proved to improve health outcomes and relieve disease burden efficiently for both individual and society. With geographical impedance becoming the major barrier preventing patients from getting timely healthcare service, this study incorporated health seeking behavior in estimating spatial accessibility of relative scarce LDCT resource in China, thus to provide real-world evidence for future government investment and policy making.

METHODS

Taking Sichuan Province in southwest China as the study area, a cross-sectional survey was first carried out to collect actual practice and preferences for seeking LDCT services. Using Computed Tomography (CT) registration data reported by owner institutions representing LDCT services capacity, and grided town-level high-risk population as demand, the Nearest Neighbor Method was then utilized to calculate spatial accessibility of LDCT services.

RESULTS

A total of 2,529 valid questionnaires were collected, with only 34.72% of the high-risk populations (746 individuals) followed the recommended annual screening. Participants preferred to travel to municipal-level and above institutions within 60 min for LDCT services. Currently, every thousand high-risk populations own 0.0845 CT scanners in Sichuan Province, with 96.95% able to access LDCT within 60 min and over half within 15 min. Urban areas generally showed better accessibility than rural areas, and the more developed eastern regions were better than the western regions with ethnic minority clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Spatial access to LDCT services is generally convenient in Sichuan Province, but disparity exists between different regions and population groups. Improving LDCT capacity in county-level hospitals as well as promoting health education and policy guidance to the public can optimize efficiency of existing CT resources. Implementing mobile CT services and improving rural public transportation may alleviate emerging disparities in accessing early lung cancer detection.

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.

Liquid Biopsy as an Adjunct to Lung Screening Imaging

Current lung cancer screening protocols use low-dose computed tomography scans in selected high-risk individuals. Unfortunately, utilization is low, and the rate of false-positive screens is high. Peripheral biomarkers carry meaningful promise in diagnosing and monitoring cancer with added potential advantages reducing invasive procedures and improving turnaround time. Herein, the use of such blood-based assays is considered as an adjunct to further utilization and accuracy of lung cancer screening.

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.

Racial Disparities in Lung Cancer Stage of Diagnosis Among Adults Living in the Southeastern United States

BACKGROUND

Black Americans receive a diagnosis at later stage of lung cancer more often than White Americans. We undertook a population-based study to identify factors contributing to racial disparities in lung cancer stage of diagnosis among low-income adults.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Which multilevel factors contribute to racial disparities in stage of lung cancer at diagnosis?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Cases of incident lung cancer from the prospective observational Southern Community Cohort Study were identified by linkage with state cancer registries in 12 southeastern states. Logistic regression shrinkage techniques were implemented to identify individual-level and area-level factors associated with distant stage diagnosis. A subset of participants who responded to psychosocial questions (eg, racial discrimination experiences) were evaluated to determine if model predictive power improved.

RESULTS

We identified 1,572 patients with incident lung cancer with available lung cancer stage (64% self-identified as Black and 36% self-identified as White). Overall, Black participants with lung cancer showed greater unadjusted odds of distant stage diagnosis compared with White participants (OR,1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.59). Greater neighborhood area deprivation was associated with distant stage diagnosis (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.19-2.11). After controlling for individual- and area-level factors, no significant difference were found in distant stage disease for Black vs White participants. However, participants with COPD showed lower odds of distant stage diagnosis in the primary model (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.98). Interesting and complex interactions were observed. The subset analysis model with additional variables for racial discrimination experiences showed slightly greater predictive power than the primary model.

INTERPRETATION

Reducing racial disparities in lung cancer stage at presentation will require interventions on both structural and individual-level factors.

Precision Medicine and Novel Therapeutic Strategies in Detection and Treatment of Cancer: Highlights from the 58th IACR Annual Conference

Innovation in both detection and treatment of cancer is necessary for the constant improvement in therapeutic strategies, especially in patients with novel or resistant variants of cancer. Cancer mortality rates have declined by almost 30% since 1991, however, depending on the cancer type, acquired resistance can occur to varying degrees. To combat this, researchers are looking towards advancing our understanding of cancer biology, in order to inform early detection, and guide novel therapeutic approaches. Through combination of these approaches, it is believed that a more complete and thorough intervention on cancer can be achieved. Here, we will discuss the advances and approaches in both detection and treatment of cancer, presented at the 58th Irish Association for Cancer Research (IACR) annual conference.

Interest in genetic testing and risk-reducing behavioral changes: results from a community health assessment in New York City

Risk-based genetic tests are often used to determine cancer risk, when to initiate screening, and frequency of screening, but rely on interest in genetic testing. We examined overall interest in genetic testing for cancer risk assessment and willingness to change behavior, and whether these are affected by demographic or socioeconomic factors.We conducted a community needs health survey in 2019 among primary care and cancer patients, family members and community members in New York City. We used univariable analysis and relative risk regression to examine interest in genetic cancer risk testing and willingness to modify lifestyle behaviors in response to an informative genetic test.Of the 1225 participants, 74.0% (n = 906) expressed interest in having a genetic test to assess cancer risk. Interest in genetic testing was high across all demographic and socioeconomic groups; reported interest in genetic testing by group ranged from 65.0 (participants aged 65 years and older) to 83.6% (participants below federal poverty level). Among the 906 participants that reported interest in genetic testing, 79.6% were willing to change eating habits, 66.5% to change exercise habits, and 49.5% to lose weight in response to an informative genetic test result.Our study reveals that interest in genetic testing for cancer risk is high among patients and community members and is high across demographic and socioeconomic groups, as is the reported willingness to change behavior. Based on these results, we recommend that population-based genetic testing may result in greater reduction cancer risk, particularly among minoritized groups.

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.

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.

Patient Perspectives on Longitudinal Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) has mortality benefits for eligible participants; however, studies demonstrate low adherence to follow-up LCS.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are patients' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adherence to annual LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Forty participants enrolled in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS program completed a demographic questionnaire and a semistructured interview based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework to determine attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to longitudinal LCS. Interviews were coded using principles of framework analysis to identify and compare themes between adherent and nonadherent participants.

RESULTS

The 40 participants underwent initial LCS in 2017 with negative results. Seventeen were adherent to follow-up annual LCS, whereas 23 were not. Seven overall themes emerged from qualitative analysis, which are summarized as follows: (1) screening experiences are positive and participants have positive attitudes toward screening; (2) provider recommendation is a motivator and key facilitator for most patients; (3) many patients are influenced by personal factors and symptoms and do not understand the importance of asymptomatic screening; (4) common barriers to longitudinal screening include cost, insurance coverage, accessibility, and other medical conditions; (5) patients have variable preferences about how they receive their screening results, and many have residual questions about their results and future screening; (6) reminders are an important facilitator of annual screening; and (7) most patients think a navigator would be beneficial to the screening process, with different aspects of navigation thought to be most helpful. Those who were not adherent more commonly reported individual barriers to screening, competing health concerns, and less provider communication.

INTERPRETATION

Key facilitators (eg, patient reminders, provider recommendations) may improve long-term screening behavior, and a number of barriers to the screening process could be addressed through patient navigation.

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.

Barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening uptake: protocol of a mixed methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The global uptake rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT remain low. Since numerous factors contribute to the underuse of LCS, a theory-informed approach to identify and address the uptake of LCS barriers and facilitators is required. This study aims to document the methods which were used to identify, appraise, and synthesise the available qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence, addressing the barriers and facilitators at the individual and healthcare provider level, according to the social-ecological model, before identifying gaps to aid future practices and policies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Ovid (Journals @ Ovid Full Text and Ovid MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database, from their creation up to 31 December 2020. Two reviewers will be involved in independently screening, reviewing, and synthesising the data; and calibration exercises will be conducted at each stage. Disagreements between the two reviewers will be resolved by arbitration by a third reviewer. The Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data from the Joanna Briggs Institute, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria adapted for qualitative studies, and the 16-item Quality Assessment Tool (QATSDD) will be used in the quality assessment of primary studies. We will perform data synthesis using the Review Manager software, V.5.3.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a review of published data and therefore needs no ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020162802.

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.

Early detection of cancer

Survival improves when cancer is detected early. However, ~50% of cancers are at an advanced stage when diagnosed. Early detection of cancer or precancerous change allows early intervention to try to slow or prevent cancer development and lethality. To achieve early detection of all cancers, numerous challenges must be overcome. It is vital to better understand who is at greatest risk of developing cancer. We also need to elucidate the biology and trajectory of precancer and early cancer to identify consequential disease that requires intervention. Insights must be translated into sensitive and specific early detection technologies and be appropriately evaluated to support practical clinical implementation. Interdisciplinary collaboration is key; advances in technology and biological understanding highlight that it is time to accelerate early detection research and transform cancer survival.

Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity in an Integrated Health System in Hawaii

Importance

Racial and ethnic differences in lung cancer screening (LCS) completion and follow-up may be associated with lung cancer incidence and mortality rates among high-risk populations. Aggregation of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander racial and ethnic groups may mask the true underlying disparities in screening uptake and diagnostic follow-up, creating barriers for targeted, preventive health care.

Objective

To examine racial and ethnic differences in LCS completion and follow-up rates in a multiethnic population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study was conducted at a health maintenance organization in Hawaii. LCS program participants were identified using electronic medical records from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Study eligibility requirements included being aged 55 to 79 years, a 30 pack-year smoking history, a current smoker or having quit within the past 15 years, at least 5 years past any lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, and cancer free. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to October 2020.

Exposure

Eligible for LCS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Screening rates were analyzed by self-reported race and ethnicity and completion of a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) test. Diagnostic follow-up results were based on the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) staging system.

Results

A total of 1030 eligible LCS program members had an order placed; their mean (SD) age was 65.5 (5.8) years, and 633 (61%) were men. The largest racial and ethnic groups were non-Hispanic White (381 participants [37.0%]), Native Hawaiian or part Native Hawaiian (186 participants [18.1%]), and Japanese (146 participants [14.2%]). Men and Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, and non-Hispanic White individuals had a higher proportion of screen orders for LDCT compared with women and individuals of the other racial and ethnic groups. The overall LCS completion rate was 81% (838 participants). There was a 14% to 15% screening completion rate gap among groups. Asian individuals had the highest screening completion rate (266 participants [86%]) followed by Native Hawaiian (149 participants [80%]) and non-Hispanic White individuals (305 participants [80%]), Pacific Islander (50 participants [79%]) individuals, and individuals of other racial and ethnic groups (68 participants [77%]). Within Asian subgroups, Korean (31 participants [94%]) and Japanese (129 participants [88%]) individuals had the highest completion rates followed by Chinese individuals (28 participants [82%]) and Filipino individuals (78 participants [79%]). Of the 54 participants with Lung-RADS stage 3 disease, 93% (50 participants) completed a 6-month surveillance LDCT test; of 37 individuals with Lung-RADS stage 4 disease, 35 (97%) were followed-up for additional procedures.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found racial and ethnic disparities in LCS completion rates after disaggregation of Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Asian individuals and their subgroups. These findings suggest that future research is needed to understand factors that may be associated with LCS completion and follow-up behaviors among these racial and ethnic groups.

The Impact of Medicare Health Insurance Coverage on Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening via low-dose computed tomography can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk adults by 20%; however, screening take-up remains low. Inadequate insurance coverage or access to care may be a barrier to screening.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of nearly universal access to Medicare coverage on annual lung cancer screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the causal effect of nearly universal access to Medicare at age 65. Data come from the 2017 to 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 28 states that adopted the optional module on lung cancer screening and lung cancer risk.

SUBJECTS

A total of 11,163 individuals at high risk for lung cancer just above and below age 65.

MEASURE

Self-reported use of low-dose computed tomography to screen for lung cancer in the past 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 10,951 people at high lung cancer risk (45.7% women, response rate=98.1%) reported lung cancer screening information. Nearly universal access to Medicare increased lung cancer screening by 16.2 percentage points among men (95% confidence interval: 2.4%-30.0%, P=0.02), compared with a baseline screening rate of 11.1% just younger than age 65. Women had a baseline screening rate of 18.2% and experienced no statistically significant change in screening (1.6 percentage point increase, 95% confidence interval: -19.8% to 23.0%, P=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Gaining Medicare coverage at age 65 increased lung cancer screening take-up among men at high lung cancer risk. Lack of insurance or inadequate access to care hinders screening.

Lung cancer screening: intention to participate and acceptability among Belgian smokers

OBJECTIVE

Next to the obvious benefits of tobacco-use cessation, lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans has been proposed as a means to lower lung cancer burden. Achieving an impact of any cancer screening program on cancer-specific mortality largely depends on the uptake. The aim of this study was to estimate the acceptability and intention to participate in a lung cancer screening program among Belgian current or former smokers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among adults from the Belgian population. Sampling took place within an existing online panel.

RESULTS

In total, 83.6% of all respondents (n = 2727), including current or former smokers and never smokers, believed that offering lung cancer screening to current or former smokers is a good idea. 84.3% of all current or former smokers (n = 1534) answered that they would likely or very likely participate in a screening program for lung cancer. The majority of current smokers that were willing to be screened said they would also want to receive tobacco-use cessation counseling in parallel with screening (71.8%; n = 486), whereas 9% (n = 61) would decline.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that a Belgian lung cancer screening program would be acceptable and could be well-attended by current or former smokers. Further research should focus on how smokers can be best reached to propose screening, and how tobacco-use cessation counseling can be successfully integrated in a lung cancer screening program.

Stratification and management of patients ineligible for lung cancer screening

This study identifies participants ineligible for lung cancer screening with the greatest likelihood of future eligibility. Lung cancer risk in participants enrolled in longitudinal lung screening was assessed using the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian lung cancer risk calculator (PLCO_m2012) at two timepoints: baseline (T₁) and follow-up (T₂). Separate analyses were performed on four PLCO_m2012 eligibility thresholds (3.25%, 2.00%, 1.50%, and 1.00%); only participants with a T₁ risk less than the threshold were included in that analysis. Cox-models identified T₁ risk factors associated with screen-eligibility at T₂. Three models, applying differing assumptions of participant behavior, predicted future eligibility and were benchmarked against the observed cohort. Nine hundred and fifty-six participants had a T₁ risk <3.25%; at 2.00% n= 755; at 1.50% n= 652; at 1.00% n= 484. Lung cancer risk increased over time in most screen-ineligible participants. However, risk increased much faster in participants who became screen-eligible at T₂ compared to those who remained screen-ineligible (median per-year increase of 0.35% versus 0.02%, when using a 3.25% threshold). Participants smoking for >30 years, current smokers, less educated participants, and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at T₁ were significantly more likely to become screen-eligible. New diagnoses of COPD and/or non-lung cancers between T₁ and T₂ precipitated eligibility in a subset of participants. The prediction model that assumed health behaviors observed at T₁ continued to T₂ reasonably predicted changes in lung cancer risk. This prediction model and the identified baseline risk factors can identify screen-ineligible participants who should be closely followed for future eligibility.

Determinants Associated With Longitudinal Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Analysis of Claims Data

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) efficacy is highly dependent on adherence to annual screening, but little is known about real-world adherence determinants. We used insurance claims data to examine associations between LCS annual adherence and demographic, comorbidity, health care usage, and geographic factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Insurance claims data for all individuals with an LCS low-dose CT scan were obtained from the Colorado All Payer Claims Dataset. Adherence was defined as a second claim for a screening CT 10 to 18 months after the index claim. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to define the relationship between annual adherence and age, gender, insurance type, residence location, outpatient health care usage, and comorbidity burden.

RESULTS

After exclusions, the final data set consisted of 9,056 records with 3,072 adherent, 3,570 nonadherent, and 2,414 censored (unclassifiable) individuals. Less adherence was associated with ages 55 to 59 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67-0.94), 60 to 64 (HR = 0.83, 99% CI = 0.71-0.97), and 75 to 79 (HR = 0.79, 99% CI = 0.65-0.97); rural residence (HR = 0.56, 99% CI = 0.43-0.73); Medicare fee-for-service (HR = 0.45, 99% CI = 0.39-0.51), and Medicaid (HR = 0.50, 99% CI = 0.40-0.62). A significant interaction between outpatient health care usage and comorbidity was also observed. Increased outpatient usage was associated with increased adherence and was most pronounced for individuals without comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based description of LCS adherence determinants provides insight into populations that might benefit from specific interventions targeted toward improving adherence and maximizing LCS benefit. Quantifying population-based adherence rates and understanding factors associated with annual adherence are critical to improving screening adherence and reducing lung cancer death.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.

"It's Really Like Any Other Study": Rural Radiology Facilities Performing Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening

RATIONALE

The majority of eligible people have not been screened for lung cancer. There is emerging evidence that there are location-based disparities applicable to lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

Describe lung cancer screening radiologic services in rural Oregon and understand the barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening using LDCT.

METHODS

A mixed-methods descriptive study utilizing surveys and semi-structured interviews of key informants. We approached representatives from all 37 small and rural hospitals in Oregon. We purposively interviewed key informants from a sub-set based on LDCT implementation outcomes.

RESULTS

We surveyed representatives from 29 radiology facilities and qualitatively interviewed 18 key informants from 19 facilities (representing 12 health care systems). Among the surveyed radiology facilities, 59% were performing LDCT for lung cancer screening. Key informants reported that facilities which performed this service were often motivated by community needs, less by financial gain or evidence strength and all described the importance of a champion. Key informants described that implementing lung cancer screening programmatic components that were within their normal scope of practice (e.g. specifying the LDCT parameters) were burdensome to establish but were surmountable barriers. Most informants reported they did not perform other components of high-quality programs (e.g. ensuring adherence to recommended follow-up testing) and suggested these steps were important but the responsibility of primary care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Many rural hospital facilities in Oregon offer LDCT for lung cancer screening, but do not perform all the recommended components of a screening program. Disparities in lung cancer screening utilization and adherence are unlikely to be solved by an exclusive focus at the radiology facility level and may require additional interventions at the primary care level.

Variation in Eligible Patients' Agreeing to and Receiving Lung Cancer Screening: A Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how clinicians make low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening decisions in practice. Investigators assessed the factors associated with real-world decision making, hypothesizing that lung cancer risk and comorbidity would not be associated with agreeing to or receiving screening. Though these factors are key determinants of the benefit of lung cancer screening, they are often difficult to incorporate into decisions without the aid of decision tools.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients meeting current national eligibility criteria and deemed appropriate candidates for lung cancer screening on the basis of clinical reminders completed over a 2-year period (2013-2015) at 8 Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models (conducted in 2019-2020) assessed predictors (age, sex, lung cancer risk, Charlson Comorbidity Index, travel distance to facility, and central versus outlying decision-making location) of primary outcomes of agreeing to and receiving lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

Of 5,551 patients (mean age=67 years, 97% male, mean lung cancer risk=0.7%, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index=1.14, median travel distance=24.2 miles), 3,720 (67%) agreed to lung cancer screening and 2,398 (43%) received screening. Lung cancer risk and comorbidity score were not strong predictors of agreeing to or receiving screening. Empirical Bayes adjusted rates of agreeing to and receiving screening ranged from 22% to 84% across facilities and from 19% to 85% across clinicians. A total of 33.7% of the variance in agreeing to and 34.2% of the variance in receiving screening was associated with the facility or the clinician offering screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation was found in Veterans agreeing to and receiving lung cancer screening during the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. This variation was not explained by differences in key determinants of patient benefit, whereas the facility and clinician advising the patient had a large impact on lung cancer screening decisions.

Validation of the BRODERS classifier (Benign versus aggRessive nODule Evaluation using Radiomic Stratification), a novel HRCT-based radiomic classifier for indeterminate pulmonary nodules

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening and the ever-increasing use of cross-sectional imaging are resulting in the identification of many screen- and incidentally detected indeterminate pulmonary nodules. While the management of nodules with low or high pre-test probability of malignancy is relatively straightforward, those with intermediate pre-test probability commonly require advanced imaging or biopsy. Noninvasive risk stratification tools are highly desirable.

METHODS

We previously developed the BRODERS classifier (Benign versus aggRessive nODule Evaluation using Radiomic Stratification), a conventional predictive radiomic model based on eight imaging features capturing nodule location, shape, size, texture and surface characteristics. Herein we report its external validation using a dataset of incidentally identified lung nodules (Vanderbilt University Lung Nodule Registry) in comparison to the Brock model. Area under the curve (AUC), as well as sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

For the entire Vanderbilt validation set (n=170, 54% malignant), the AUC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.92) for the Brock model and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94) for the BRODERS model. Using the optimal cut-off determined by Youden's index, the sensitivity was 92.3%, the specificity was 62.0%, the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were 73.7% and 87.5%, respectively. For nodules with intermediate pre-test probability of malignancy, Brock score of 5-65% (n=97), the sensitivity and specificity were 94% and 46%, respectively, the PPV was 78.4% and the NPV was 79.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The BRODERS radiomic predictive model performs well on an independent dataset and may facilitate the management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules.

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

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

Cancer-Specific Mortality, All-Cause Mortality, and Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening Trials: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Benefit of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality is unclear. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess its associations with outcomes.

METHODS

We searched the literature and previous systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LDCT screening with usual care or chest radiography. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were lung cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and the cumulative incidence ratio of lung cancer between screened and unscreened groups as a measure of overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis was based on 8 trials with 90,475 patients that had a low risk of bias. There was a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality with LDCT screening (relative risk = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89); the estimated absolute risk reduction was 0.4% (number needed to screen = 250). The reduction in all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (relative risk = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.01), but the absolute reduction was consistent with that for lung cancer-specific mortality (0.34%; number needed to screen = 294). In the studies with the longest duration of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 25% higher in the screened group, corresponding to a 20% rate of overdiagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showing a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality, albeit with a tradeoff of likely overdiagnosis, supports recommendations to screen individuals at elevated risk for lung cancer with LDCT.

"We Just Never Have Enough Time": Clinician Views of Lung Cancer Screening Processes and Implementation

RATIONALE

Despite a known mortality benefit, lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation has been unexpectedly slow. New programs face barriers to implementation, which may include lack of clinician engagement or beliefs that the intervention is not beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate diverse clinician perspectives on their views of LCS and their experience with LCS implementation and processes.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS. Clinicians were drawn from three medical centers, representing diverse specialties and practice settings. All participants practiced at sites with formal lung cancer screening programs. We performed semi-structured interviews with probes designed to elicit opinions of LCS, perceived evidence gaps, and recommendations for improvements. Transcribed interviews were iteratively reviewed and coded using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants (n=24) included LCS coordinators, pulmonologists, physician and non-physician primary care providers (PCPs), a surgeon, and a radiologist. Most clinicians expressed that the evidence supporting LCS was adequate to support clinical adoption, though most PCPs had little direct knowledge and based decisions on local recommendations or endorsement by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). Many PCPs endorsed lack of knowledge of eligibility requirements and screening strategy (e.g. annual while eligible). Clinicians with more lung cancer screening knowledge, including several PCPs, identified a number of gaps in the current evidence that tempered enthusiasm, including: unclear ideal screening interval, populations with high cancer risk that do not qualify under USPSTF, indications to stop screening, and the role of serious comorbidities. Support for centralized programs and LCS coordinators was strong, but not uniform. Clinicians were frustrated by time limitations during a patient encounter, costs to the patient, and issues with insurance coverage. Many gaps in informatics support were identified. Clinicians recommended working to improve informatics support, continuing to clarify clinician responsibilities, and working on increasing public awareness of LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite working within programs that have adopted many recommended care processes to support LCS, clinicians identified a number of issues in providing high-quality LCS. Many of these issues are best addressed by improved support of LCS within the electronic health record and continued education of staff and patients.

Impact of a Hybrid Lung Cancer Screening Model on Patient Outcomes and Provider Behavior

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation is complicated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement requirements of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling. LCS programs can utilize different structures to meet these requirements, but the impact of programmatic structure on provider behavior and screening outcomes is poorly described.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective chart review of 624 patients in a hybrid structure, academic LCS program, we compared characteristics and outcomes of primary care provider (PCP)- and specialist-screened patients. We also assessed the impact of the availability of an LCS specialty clinic and best practice advisory (BPA) on PCP ordering patterns using electronic medical record generated reports.

RESULTS

During the study period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, 48% of patients were specialist-screened and 52% were PCP-screened; there were no clinically relevant differences in patient characteristics or screening outcomes between these populations. PCPs demonstrate distinct practice patterns when offered the choice of specialist-driven or PCP-driven screening. Increased exposure to a LCS BPA is associated with increased PCP screening orders. The addition of a nurse navigator into the LCS program increased documentation of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling to > 95% and virtually eliminated screening of ineligible patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic interventions including a BPA and nurse navigator are associated with increased screening and improved program quality, as evidenced by reduced screening of ineligible patients, increased lung cancer risk of the screened population, and improved compliance with LCS guidelines. Individual PCPs demonstrate clear preferences regarding LCS that should be considered in program design.

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.