A Geospatial Analysis of Factors Affecting Access to CT Facilities: Implications for Lung Cancer Screening

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESEARCH QUESTION

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

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

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.

Barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening using the 5As framework: A systematic review of US studies

Despite clear evidence that regular screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality and the availability of multiple effective screening options, CRC screening continues to be underutilized in the US. A systematic literature search of four databases - Ovid, Medline, EBSCHOhost, and Web of Science - was conducted to identify US studies published after 2017 that reported on barriers and facilitators to CRC screening adherence. Articles were extracted to categorize relevant CRC screening barriers or facilitators that were assessed against CRC screening outcomes using the 5As dimensions: Access, Affordability, Acceptance, Awareness, Activation. Sixty-one studies were included. Fifty determinants of screening within the 5As framework and two additional dimensions including Sociodemographics and Health Status were identified. The Sociodemographics, Access, and Affordability dimensions had the greatest number of studies included. The most common factor in the Access dimension was contact with healthcare systems, within the Affordability dimension was insurance, within the Awareness dimension was knowledge CRC screening, within the Acceptance dimension was health beliefs, within the Activation dimension was prompts and reminders, within the Sociodemographics dimension was race/ethnicity, and among the Health Status dimension was chronic disease history. Among all studies, contact with healthcare systems, insurance, race/ethnicity, age, and education were the most common factors identified. CRC screening barriers and facilitators were identified across individual, clinical, and sociocontextual levels. Interventions that consider multilevel strategies will most effectively increase CRC screening adherence.

Rurality as a Risk Factor for Pulmonary Health Disparities

Rural populations experience significant pulmonary health disparities compared with urban populations. Patients in rural communities experience health determinants including high smoking prevalence, worse nutrition, lower educational attainment, specific occupational exposures, decreased health-care access, as well as unique cultural and political drivers of health. This article describes social determinants of pulmonary health relevant in rural communities, describes examples of existing pulmonary disparities in rural populations, and highlights health policies with potential to mitigate disparities.

The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community: a multi-health-system, citywide approach to lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening uptake for individuals at high risk is generally low across the United States, and reporting of lung cancer screening practices and outcomes is often limited to single hospitals or institutions. We describe a citywide, multicenter analysis of individuals receiving lung cancer screening integrated with geospatial analyses of neighborhood-level lung cancer risk factors.

METHODS

The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community consists of lung cancer screening clinicians and researchers at the 3 largest health systems in the city. This multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team identified a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community study cohort that included 11 222 Philadelphia residents who underwent low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening from 2014 to 2021 at a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community health-care system. Individual-level demographic and clinical data were obtained, and lung cancer screening participants were geocoded to their Philadelphia census tract of residence. Neighborhood characteristics were integrated with lung cancer screening counts to generate bivariate choropleth maps.

RESULTS

The combined sample included 37.8% Black adults, 52.4% women, and 56.3% adults who currently smoke. Of 376 residential census tracts in Philadelphia, 358 (95.2%) included 5 or more individuals undergoing lung cancer screening, and the highest counts were geographically clustered around each health system's screening sites. A relatively low percentage of screened adults resided in census tracts with high tobacco retailer density or high smoking prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

The sociodemographic characteristics of lung cancer screening participants in Philadelphia varied by health system and neighborhood. These results suggest that a multicenter approach to lung cancer screening can identify vulnerable areas for future tailored approaches to improving lung cancer screening uptake. Future directions should use these findings to develop and test collaborative strategies to increase lung cancer screening at the community and regional levels.

"Will I change nodule management recommendations if I change my CAD system?"-impact of volumetric deviation between different CAD systems on lesion management

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the measurement accuracy of two different computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems regarding artificial pulmonary nodules and assess the clinical impact of volumetric inaccuracies in a phantom study.

METHODS

In this phantom study, 59 different phantom arrangements with 326 artificial nodules (178 solid, 148 ground-glass) were scanned at 80 kV, 100 kV, and 120 kV. Four different nodule diameters were used: 5 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm. Scans were analyzed by a deep-learning (DL)-based CAD and a standard CAD system. Relative volumetric errors (RVE) of each system vs. ground truth and the relative volume difference (RVD) DL-based vs. standard CAD were calculated. The Bland-Altman method was used to define the limits of agreement (LOA). The hypothetical impact on LungRADS classification was assessed for both systems.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the three voltage groups regarding nodule volumetry. Regarding the solid nodules, the RVE of the 5-mm-, 8-mm-, 10-mm-, and 12-mm-size groups for the DL CAD/standard CAD were 12.2/2.8%, 1.3/ - 2.8%, - 3.6/1.5%, and - 12.2/ - 0.3%, respectively. The corresponding values for the ground-glass nodules (GGN) were 25.6%/81.0%, 9.0%/28.0%, 7.6/20.6%, and 6.8/21.2%. The mean RVD for solid nodules/GGN was 1.3/ - 15.2%. Regarding the LungRADS classification, 88.5% and 79.8% of all solid nodules were correctly assigned by the DL CAD and the standard CAD, respectively. 14.9% of the nodules were assigned differently between the systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient management may be affected by the volumetric inaccuracy of the CAD systems and hence demands supervision and/or manual correction by a radiologist.

KEY POINTS

• The DL-based CAD system was more accurate in the volumetry of GGN and less accurate regarding solid nodules than the standard CAD system. • Nodule size and attenuation have an effect on the measurement accuracy of both systems; tube voltage has no effect on measurement accuracy. • Measurement inaccuracies of CAD systems can have an impact on patient management, which demands supervision by radiologists.

Exploring regional disparities in lung cancer mortality in a Brazilian state: A cross-sectional ecological study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer (LC) is one of the main causes of mortality in Brazil; geographic, cultural, socioeconomic and health access factors can affect the development of the disease. We explored the geospatial distribution of LC mortality, and associated factors, between 2015 and 2019, in Parana state, Brazil.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We obtained mortality (from the Brazilian Health Informatics Department) and population rates (from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [IBGE]) in people over 40 years old, accessibility of oncology centers by municipality, disease diagnosis rate (from Brazilian Ministry of Health), the tobacco production rate (IBGE) and Parana Municipal Performance Index (IPDM) (from Parana Institute for Economic and Social Development). Global Moran's Index and Local Indicators of Spatial Association were performed to evaluate the spatial distribution of LC mortality in Parana state. Ordinary Least Squares Regression and Geographically Weighted Regression were used to verify spatial association between LC mortality and socioeconomic indicators and health service coverage. A strong spatial autocorrelation of LC mortality was observed, with the detection of a large cluster of high LC mortality in the South of Parana state. Spatial regression analysis showed that all independent variables analyzed were directly related to LC mortality by municipality in Paraná.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a disparity in the LC mortality in Parana state, and inequality of socioeconomic and accessibility to health care services could be associated with it. Our findings may help health managers to intensify actions in regions with vulnerability in the detection and treatment of LC.

Development of a Novel Circulating Autoantibody Biomarker Panel for the Identification of Patients with 'Actionable' Pulmonary Nodules

Due to poor compliance and uptake of LDCT screening among high-risk populations, lung cancer is often diagnosed in advanced stages where treatment is rarely curative. Based upon the American College of Radiology's Lung Imaging and Reporting Data System (Lung-RADS) 80-90% of patients screened will have clinically "non-actionable" nodules (Lung-RADS 1 or 2), and those harboring larger, clinically "actionable" nodules (Lung-RADS 3 or 4) have a significantly greater risk of lung cancer. The development of a companion diagnostic method capable of identifying patients likely to have a clinically actionable nodule identified during LDCT is anticipated to improve accessibility and uptake of the paradigm and improve early detection rates. Using protein microarrays, we identified 501 circulating targets with differential immunoreactivities against cohorts characterized as possessing either actionable (n = 42) or non-actionable (n = 20) solid pulmonary nodules, per Lung-RADS guidelines. Quantitative assays were assembled on the Luminex platform for the 26 most promising targets. These assays were used to measure serum autoantibody levels in 841 patients, consisting of benign (BN; n = 101), early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n = 245), other early-stage malignancies within the lung (n = 29), and individuals meeting United States Preventative Screening Task Force (USPSTF) screening inclusion criteria with both actionable (n = 87) and non-actionable radiologic findings (n = 379). These 841 patients were randomly split into three cohorts: Training, Validation 1, and Validation 2. Of the 26 candidate biomarkers tested, 17 differentiated patients with actionable nodules from those with non-actionable nodules. A random forest model consisting of six autoantibody (Annexin 2, DCD, MID1IP1, PNMA1, TAF10, ZNF696) biomarkers was developed to optimize our classification performance; it possessed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 61.4%/61.0% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.7%/83.9% against Validation cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. This panel may improve patient selection methods for lung cancer screening, serving to greatly reduce the futile screening rate while also improving accessibility to the paradigm for underserved populations.

Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening update on drivers of disparities in screening eligibility

BACKGROUND

In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its recommendation to expand lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility and mitigate disparities. Although this increased the number of non-White individuals who are eligible for LCS, the update's impact on drivers of disparities is less clear. This analysis focuses on racial disparities among Black individuals because members of this group disproportionately share late-stage lung cancer diagnoses, despite typically having a lower intensity smoking history compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.

METHODS

We used data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine the impact of the 2021 eligibility criteria on racial disparities by factors such as education, poverty, employment history, and insurance status. We also examined preventive care use and reasons for delaying medical care.

RESULTS

When comparing Black individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals, our analyses show significant differences in who would be eligible for LCS: Those who do not have a high school diploma (28.7% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.002), are in poverty (26.2% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001), and have not worked in the past 12 months (66.5% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.009). Further, our analyses also show that more Black individuals delayed medical care due to not having transportation (11.1% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that despite increasing the number of Black individuals who are eligible for LCS, the 2021 USPSTF recommendation highlights ongoing socioeconomic disparities that need to be addressed to ensure equitable access.

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.

Understanding geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in mortality from four major cancers in the state of Georgia: a spatial epidemiologic analysis, 1999–2019

We examined geographic and racial variation in cancer mortality within the state of Georgia, and investigated the correlation between the observed spatial differences and county-level characteristics. We analyzed county-level cancer mortality data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer mortality among adults (aged ≥ 18 years) in 159 Georgia counties from years 1999 through 2019. Geospatial methods were applied, and we identified hot spot counties based on cancer mortality rates overall and stratified by non-Hispanic white (NH-white) and NH-black race/ethnicity. Among all adults, 5.0% (8 of 159), 8.2% (13 of 159), 5.0% (8 of 159), and 6.9% (11 of 159) of Georgia counties were estimated hot spots for breast cancer, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer mortality, respectively. Cancer mortality hot spots were heavily concentrated in three major areas: (1) eastern Piedmont to Coastal Plain regions, (2) southwestern rural Georgia area, or (3) northern-most rural Georgia. Overall, hot spot counties generally had higher proportion of NH-black adults, older adult population, greater poverty, and more rurality. In Georgia, targeted cancer prevention strategies and allocation of health resources are needed in counties with elevated cancer mortality rates, focusing on interventions suitable for NH-black race/ethnicity, low-income, and rural residents.

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.

Access to ultrasound imaging: A qualitative study in two northern, remote, Indigenous communities in Canada

Ultrasound imaging is an essential component of healthcare services. This study sought to explore perceptions of access, and factors which shape access, to ultrasound imaging in two northern, remote, Indigenous communities in Canada. Using interpretive description as a methodological approach and a multi-dimensional conceptualisation of access to care as a theoretical framework, 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted in the northern Canadian communities of Stony Rapids and Black Lake, Saskatchewan. All participants had an obstetrical or non-obstetrical ultrasound exam performed in the past 10 years. Interviews were audio recorded and interview transcripts were analysed using constant comparative analysis. Geographic isolation from imaging facilities was a central barrier to participants accessing ultrasound imaging. Other barriers became apparent when participants had to travel for ultrasound, including fear of air travel, isolation from family, financial means, and unfamiliarity with larger cities. Barriers such as family and work responsibilities were exacerbated by the barrier of geography. Participants overcame these barriers as they were motivated by potential diagnostic benefits of ultrasound imaging. This study highlights disparities in access to ultrasound for northern, remote, Indigenous populations. Future efforts to improve access to imaging should consider barriers of distance to imaging facilities and strategies to bridge these barriers.

Contemporary issues in the implementation of lung cancer screening

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

"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.

Clinical comparison between trial participants and potentially eligible patients using electronic health record data: A generalizability assessment method

OBJECTIVE

To present a generalizability assessment method that compares baseline clinical characteristics of trial participants (TP) to potentially eligible (PE) patients as presented in their electronic health record (EHR) data while controlling for clinical setting and recruitment period.

METHODS

For each clinical trial, a clinical event was defined to identify patients of interest using available EHR data from one clinical setting during the trial's recruitment timeframe. The trial's eligibility criteria were then applied and patients were separated into two mutually exclusive groups: (1) TP, which were patients that participated in the trial per trial enrollment data; (2) PE, the remaining patients. The primary outcome was standardized differences in clinical characteristics between TP and PE per trial. A standardized difference was considered prominent if its absolute value was greater than or equal to 0.1. The secondary outcome was the difference in mean propensity scores (PS) between TP and PE per trial, in which the PS represented prediction for a patient to be in the trial. Three diverse trials were selected for illustration: one focused on hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients receiving a liver transplantation; one focused on leukemia patients and lymphoma patients; and one focused on appendicitis patients.

RESULTS

For the HCV trial, 43 TP and 83 PE were found, with 61 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 69% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.13. For the leukemia/lymphoma trial, 23 TP and 23 PE were found, with 39 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 82% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.76. For the appendicitis trial, 123 TP and 242 PE were found, with 52 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 52% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.15.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in clinical characteristics were observed between TP and PE among all three trials. In two of the three trials, not all of the differences necessarily compromised trial generalizability and subsets of PE could be considered similar to their corresponding TP. In the remaining trial, lack of generalizability appeared present, but may be a result of other factors such as small sample size or site recruitment strategy. These inconsistent findings suggest eligibility criteria alone are sometimes insufficient in defining a target group to generalize to. With caveats in limited scalability, EHR data quality, and lack of patient perspective on trial participation, this generalizability assessment method that incorporates control for temporality and clinical setting promise to better pinpoint clinical patterns and trial considerations.

Rural barriers to early lung cancer detection: Exploring access to lung cancer screening programs in New Hampshire and Vermont

BACKGROUND

Rural populations face many health disadvantages compared to urban areas. There is a critical need to better understand the current lung cancer screening landscape in these communities to identify targeted areas to improve the impact of this proven tool.

METHODS

Data from the County Health Rankings of New Hampshire and Vermont was reviewed for population density, distribution of adult smokers, and level of education compared to the distribution of Lung Cancer Screening Facilities throughout these two states.

RESULTS

Screening programs in southern counties of Vermont with lower levels of education have decreased access. In New Hampshire, there are no programs within 30 miles of the areas with the largest distribution of smokers, and decreased access in some areas with the lowest levels of education.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving equitable access to high-quality screening services in rural regions and the creation of targeted interventions to address decreased access in areas of high tobacco use and low education is vital to decreasing the incidence of latestage presentations of lung cancer within these populations.

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.