A national survey of primary care physicians: Perceptions and practices of low-dose CT lung cancer screening

"We need to work towards it, whatever it takes."-participation factors in the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: the perspectives of key stakeholders

Background

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, targeted at those at high-risk, has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality and detect cancers at an early stage. Practical, attitudinal and demographic factors can inhibit screening participation in high-risk populations. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' views about barriers and enablers (determinants) to participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) in Australia.

Methods

Twenty-four focus groups (range 2-5 participants) were conducted in 2021 using the Zoom platform. Participants were 84 health professionals, researchers, policy makers and program managers of current screening programs. Focus groups consisted of a structured presentation with facilitated discussion lasting about 1 hour. The content was analysed thematically and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Screening determinants were identified across each stage of the proposed screening and assessment pathway. Challenges included participant factors such as encouraging participation for individuals at high-risk, whilst ensuring that access and equity issues were carefully considered in program design. The development of awareness campaigns that engaged LCS participants and health professionals, as well as streamlined referral processes for initial entry and follow-up, were strongly advocated for. Considering practical factors included the use of mobile vans in convenient locations.

Conclusions

Participants reported that LCS in Australia was acceptable and feasible. Participants identified a complex set of determinants across the proposed screening and assessment pathway. Strategies that enable the best chance for program success must be identified prior to implementation of a national LCS program.

Patient-Provider Discussion About Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Equitable Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Physician-patient discussions regarding lung cancer screening (LCS) are uncommon and its racial and ethnic disparities are under-investigated. We examined the racial and ethnic disparities in the trends and frequency of LCS discussion among the LCS-eligible United States (US) population.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2014 to 2020. LCS-eligible individuals were defined as adults aged 55 to 80 years old who have a current or former smoking history. We estimated the trends and frequency of LCS discussions and adjusted the probability of having an LCS discussion by racial and ethnic groups.

RESULTS

Among 2136 LCS-eligible participants (representing 22.7 million US adults), 12.9% (95% CI, 10.9%-15%) reported discussing LCS with their providers in the past year. The frequency of LCS discussion was lowest among non-Hispanic White participants (12.3%, 95% CI, 9.9%-14.7%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups (14.1% in Hispanic to 15.3% in non-Hispanic Black). A significant increase over time was only observed among non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1% in 2014 to 22.1% in 2020; P = .05) and non-Hispanic Whites (8.5% in 2014 to 14% in 2020; P = .02). In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black participants (14.6%, 95% CI, 12.3%-16.7%) had a significantly higher probability of LCS discussion than non-Hispanic Whites (12.1%, 95% CI, 11.4%-12.7%).

CONCLUSION

Patient-provider LCS discussion was uncommon in the LCS-eligible US population. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have LCS discussions than other racial and ethnic groups. There is a need for more research to clarify the discordance between LCS discussions and the actual screening uptake in this population.

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.

Changing recommendations for lung cancer screening: National Lung Cancer Roundtable member perspectives

Although the revised (2021) US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for lung cancer screening offer the opportunity to save more lives and reduce disparities, National Lung Cancer Roundtable members share a cautionary message about the challenges ahead. To facilitate high‐quality care for diverse populations, a patient‐centered approach is needed that incorporates high‐quality shared decision‐making, improved access to care and navigation, and more streamlined systems of care.

Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center

Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients weigh risks and benefits of screening approaches. Little is known about SDM visits between patients and healthcare providers in the context of lung cancer screening. This study explored the extent that patients were informed by their provider of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening and expressed certainty about their screening choice. We conducted a survey with 75 patients from an academic medical center in the Southeastern U.S. Survey items included knowledge of benefits and harms of screening, patients' value elicitation during SDM visits, and decisional certainty. Patient and provider characteristics were collected through electronic medical records or self-report. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Pearson correlations between screening knowledge, value elicitation, and decisional conflict were calculated. The sample was predominately non-Hispanic White (73.3%) with no more than high school education (53.4%) and referred by their primary care provider for screening (78.7%). Patients reported that providers almost always discussed benefits of screening (81.3%), but infrequently discussed potential harms (44.0%). On average, patients had low knowledge about screening (score = 3.71 out of 8) and benefits/harms. Decisional conflict was low (score = - 3.12) and weakly related to knowledge (R= - 0.25) or value elicitation (R= - 0.27). Black patients experienced higher decisional conflict than White patients (score = - 2.21 vs - 3.44). Despite knowledge scores being generally low, study patients experienced low decisional conflict regarding their decision to undergo lung cancer screening. Additional work is needed to optimize the quality and consistency of information presented to patients considering screening.

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND

Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues.

RESULTS

Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Preliminary Testing of A Web-Based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Coaching Toolfor Older Chinese American Smokers and Their Providers

OBJECTIVES

To examine the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid developed for older Chinese Americans with a smoking history and primary care providers serving this patient population.

METHODS

Study participants reviewed a web-based decision aid (DA) for lung cancer screening named "Lung Decisions Coaching Tool (LDC-T)." Participants completed a baseline survey and were invited to join an interview. During the interview, participants engaged with the Lung Decisions Coaching Tool and then completed standardized measures of acceptability, usability, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Chinese American smokers (N =22) and Chinese American physicians (N=10) rated the acceptability and usability of a patient version and provider versions of the LDC-T, respectively. Patient version demonstrated high levels of acceptability, usability and satisfaction. Most participants rated the information provided as good or excellent, the amount of tool information was just right, and they thought the tool would be useful for making a screening decision. The tool was well received by participants for ease of use and well-integrated functions. Furthermore, participants indicated they would like to use the tool to help prepare for lung cancer screening shared decision-making with their provider. Similar results were found for the provider version of the LDC-T.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer screening represents an evidence-based approach to reducing lung cancer morbidity and mortality among chronic high-frequency smokers. Study results suggest the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid for Chinese American smokers and providers. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the DA in increasing appropriate levels of screening in this underserved population.

Implementing physician education to increase lung cancer screening uptake

Aim

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force and National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for eligible adults. We conducted a study to assess physician LDCT referral patterns.

Methods

The study was divided into a pre-, intervention, and post-intervention periods. The intervention was a LC screening educational series. We evaluated rates of LDCT screening referrals during pre- and post-intervention periods.

Results

In the pre-intervention period, 75 patients fulfilled US Preventive Services Task Force and/or National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and 27% underwent LDCT. In the post-intervention period, 135 patients fulfilled either screening criteria of whom 61.5% underwent LDCT.

Conclusion

In our study, educational lectures improved compliance significantly and should be used as tool for primary care providers to effectively increase LDCT screening referrals.

Potential Impact of Criteria Modifications on Race and Sex Disparities in Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality, but current eligibility criteria underestimate risk in women and racial minorities. We evaluated the impact of screening criteria modifications on LDCT eligibility and lung cancer detection.

METHODS

Using data from a Lung Nodule Program, we compared persons eligible for LDCT by the following: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria (55-80 y, ≥30 pack-years of smoking, and ≤15 y since cessation); USPSTF2021 criteria (50-80 y, ≥20 pack-years of smoking, and ≤15 y since cessation); quit duration expanded to less than or equal to 25 years (USPSTF2021-QD25); reducing the pack-years of smoking to more than or equal to 10 years (USPSTF2021-PY10); and both (USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10). We compare across groups using the chi-square test or analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The 17,421 individuals analyzed were of 56% female sex, 69% white, 28% black; 13% met USPSTF2013 criteria; 17% USPSTF2021; 18% USPSTF2021-QD25; 19% USPSTF2021-PY10; and 21% USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10. Additional eligible individuals by USPSTF2021 (n = 682) and USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10 (n = 1402) were 27% and 29% black, both significantly higher than USPSTF2013 (17%, p < 0.0001). These additional eligible individuals were 55% (USPSTF2021) and 55% (USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10) of female sex, compared with 48% by USPSTF2013 (p < 0.05). Of 1243 persons (7.1%) with lung cancer, 22% were screening eligible by USPSTF13. USPSTF2021-QD25-PY10 increased the total number of persons with lung cancer by 37%. These additional individuals with lung cancer were of 57% female sex (versus 48% with USPSTF2013, p = 0.0476) and 24% black (versus 20% with USPSTF2013, p = 0.3367).

CONCLUSIONS

Expansion of LDCT screening eligibility criteria to allow longer quit duration and fewer pack-years of exposure enriches the screening-eligible population for women and black persons.

Development and testing of "Is Lung Cancer Screening for You?" A computer-based decision aid

PURPOSE

To reduce lung cancer mortality, individuals at high-risk should receive a low-dose computed tomography screening annually. To increase the likelihood of screening, interventions that promote shared decision-making are needed. The goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility, acceptability, usability, and preliminary effectiveness of a computer-based decision aid.

METHODS

Thirty-three participants were recruited through primary-care clinics in a small southeastern-US city. Participants used a computer-based decision aid ("Is Lung Cancer Screening for You?") during a clinic appointment. Paper surveys collected self-reported feasibility, acceptability, and usability data. A research coordinator was present to observe each patient's and health-care provider's interactions, and to assess the fidelity of shared decision-making.

RESULTS

The decision aid was feasible, acceptable for use in a clinic setting, and easy for participants to use. Patients had low decisional conflict following use of the decision aid and had high screening intention and actual screening rates. Shared decision-making discussions using the decision aid were nearly 6 min on average.

CONCLUSION

Computer-based decision aids are feasible for promoting shared lung cancer-screening decisions. A more robust study is warranted to measure the added value of a computer-based version of this aid versus a paper-based aid.

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.

Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians

Introduction

It is not realistic for most clinicians to perform the multitude of recommended preventive primary care services. This is especially true in low resource and rural settings, creating challenges to delivering high-quality care. This study collected stakeholder input from clinicians on which services they most need to improve.

Methods

The authors conducted a survey of primary care physicians 9–12/2021, with an emphasis on rural practices, to assess areas in which clinicians felt the greatest needs for improvement. The survey focused on primary prevention (behavior change counseling) and cancer screening, and contrasted needs for improvement for these services vs. other types of screening, and between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural practices.

Results

There were 326 respondents from 4 different practice-based research networks, a wide range of practice types, 49 states and included 177 clinicians in rural settings. Respondents rated the need to improve delivery of primary prevention counseling services highest, with needs for nutrition and dietary assessment and counseling rated highest followed by physical activity and with almost no differences between rural and nonrural. Needs for improvement in cancer screenings were rated higher than non-cancer screenings, except for blood pressure screening.

Conclusions

Both rural and nonrural primary care clinicians feel a need for improvement, especially with primary prevention activities. Although future research is needed to replicate these findings with different populations and other types of preventive service activities, greater priority should be given to development of practical, stakeholder informed assistance and resources for primary care to conduct primary prevention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01845-1.

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: A Framework-Driven Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to undertake a comprehensive systematic review to describe multilevel factors (barriers and facilitators) that may influence the implementation of low-dose chest computed tomography for lung cancer screening in the United States.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches were performed using 6 online databases and citation indexes for peer-reviewed studies, for articles published from 2013 to 2021. Studies were classified into 3 perspectives, based on the study's unit of analysis: system, health-care provider, and patient. Barriers and facilitators identified for each study included in our final review were then coded and categorized using the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research domains.

RESULTS

At the system level, the 2 most common constructs were external policy and incentives and executing the implementation process. At the provider level, the most common constructs were evidence strength and quality of the intervention characteristics, patient needs and resources, implementation climate, and an individual's knowledge and beliefs about the intervention. At the patient level, the most common constructs were patient needs and resources, individual's knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, and engaging in the implementation process. These constructs can act as facilitators or barriers to lung cancer screening implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research domains and constructs to understand and specify factors facilitating uptake of lung cancer screening as well as cataloging the lessons learned from previous efforts helps inform the development and implementation processes of lung cancer screening programs in the community setting.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021247677.

Sputum analysis by flow cytometry; an effective platform to analyze the lung environment

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is the standard of care for lung cancer screening in the United States (US). LDCT has a sensitivity of 93.8% but its specificity of 73.4% leads to potentially harmful follow-up procedures in patients without lung cancer. Thus, there is a need for additional assays with high accuracy that can be used as an adjunct to LDCT to diagnose lung cancer. Sputum is a biological fluid that can be obtained non-invasively and can be dissociated to release its cellular contents, providing a snapshot of the lung environment. We obtained sputum from current and former smokers with a 30+ pack-year smoking history and who were either confirmed to have lung cancer or at high risk of developing the disease. Dissociated sputum cells were counted, viability determined, and labeled with a panel of markers to separate leukocytes from non-leukocytes. After excluding debris and dead cells, including squamous epithelial cells, we identified reproducible population signatures and confirmed the samples’ lung origin. In addition to leukocyte and epithelial-specific fluorescent antibodies, we used the highly fluorescent meso-tetra(4-carboxyphenyl) porphyrin (TCPP), known to preferentially stain cancer (associated) cells. We looked for differences in cell characteristics, population size and fluorescence intensity that could be useful in distinguishing cancer samples from high-risk samples. We present our data demonstrating the feasibility of a flow cytometry platform to analyze sputum in a high-throughput and standardized matter for the diagnosis of lung cancer.

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge and Perceived Barriers Among US Physicians

Introduction

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and has historically been detected late in its course. Low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality by 20% and is currently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, compared with other cancer screening modalities, LDCT utilization remains low. This study surveyed office-based primary care physicians across the United States to better understand LDCT utilization.

Methods

A total of 1500 family and internal medicine physicians selected from the American Medical Association’s physician master file were surveyed between April and July 2019 regarding LDCT practices, eligibility, clinical scenarios, and perceived barriers.

Results

The American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate 3 was 59% (652 respondents); 599 completed supplemental questions regarding lung cancer screening. A total of 88% of respondents discussed LDCT in the previous year, and 78% had ordered at least one LDCT. Most (59%) knew the tobacco exposure criteria for LDCT and correctly identified appropriate clinical scenarios (49%–86% responded correctly). Less than half of respondents correctly identified the age eligibility criteria (44%–45% responded correctly). In general, male physicians, those who graduated after 1990, and family medicine physicians were more likely to report accurate knowledge regarding LDCT eligibility. The top perceived barriers to LDCT were cost to the patient (48% identified as a major barrier), insurance not covering screening (46% major), and patients being unaware of lung cancer screening (40% major).

Conclusion

Knowledge and practices about lung cancer screening are improving, though remain suboptimal. The most common barriers remain cost or insurance-based and suggest the need for a systems-based response to increase awareness and reduce the underutilization of LDCT.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

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.

Assessing information available for health professionals and potential participants on lung cancer screening program websites: a cross-sectional study (Preprint)

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, adjusting the age of screening to 50 years (from 55 years) and reducing the number of pack-years used to estimate total firsthand cigarette smoke exposure to 20 (from 30). With many individuals using the internet to find health care information, it is important to understand what information is available for individuals contemplating lung cancer screening.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the eligibility criteria and information available on lung cancer screening program websites for both health professionals and potential screening participants.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional analysis of 151 lung cancer screening program websites of academic (n=76) and community medical centers (n=75) in the United States with information for health professionals and potential screening participants was conducted in March 2021. Presentation of eligibility criteria for potential screening participants and presence of information available specific to health professionals about lung cancer screening were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included presentation of information about cost and smoking cessation, inclusion of an online risk assessment tool, mention of any clinical guidelines, and use of multimedia to present information.

Results

Eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening was included in nearly all 151 websites (n=142, 94%), as well as age range (n=139, 92.1%) and smoking history (n=141, 93.4%). Age was only consistent with the latest recommendations in 14.5% (n=22) of websites, and no websites had updated smoking history. Half the websites (n=76, 50.3%) mentioned screening costs as related to the type of insurance held. A total of 23 (15.2%) websites featured an online assessment tool to determine eligibility. The same proportion (n=23, 15.2%) hosted information specifically for health professionals. In total, 44 (29.1%) websites referred to smoking cessation, and 46 (30.5%) websites used multimedia to present information, such as short videos or podcasts.

Conclusions

Most websites of US lung cancer screening programs provide information about eligibility criteria, but this is not consistent and has not been updated across all websites following the latest USPSTF recommendations. Online resources require updating to present standardized information that is accessible for all.

Examination of the Association Between Access to Care and Lung Cancer Screening Among High-Risk Smokers

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of access to care on the uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among a diverse sample of screening-eligible patients. Methods: We utilized a cross-sectional study design. Our sample included patients evaluated for lung cancer screening at a large academic medical center (AMC) between 2015 and 2017 who met 2013 USPSTF guidelines for LDCT screening eligibility. The completion of LDCT screening (yes, no) was the primary dependent variable. The independent variable was access to care (insurance type, living within the AMC service area). We utilized binary logistic regression analyses to examine the influence of access to care on screening completion after adjusting for demographic factors (age, sex, race) and smoking history (current smoking status, smoking pack-year history). Results: A total of 1,355 individuals met LDCT eligibility criteria, and of those, 29.8% (n = 404) completed screening. Regression analysis results showed individuals with Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22), individuals living within the AMC service area (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.21-2.40), and those aged 65-74 years (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98) had higher odds of receiving LDCT lung cancer screening. Lower odds of screening were associated with having Medicare insurance (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.41) and out-of-pocket (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.47). Conclusion: Access to care was independently associated with lowered screening rates. Study results are consistent with prior research identifying the importance of access factors on uptake of cancer early detection screening behaviors.

Implementing lung cancer screening in primary care: needs assessment and implementation strategy design

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) could help avert thousands of deaths each year. Since the implementation of screening is complex and underspecified, there is a need for systematic and theory-based strategies. Explore the implementation of lung cancer screening in primary care, in the context of integrating a decision aid into the electronic health record. Design implementation strategies that target hypothesized mechanisms of change and context-specific barriers. The study had two phases. The Qualitative Analysis phase included semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians to elicit key task behaviors (e.g., ordering a low-dose CT) and understand the underlying behavioral determinants (e.g., social influence). The Implementation Strategy Design phase consisted of defining implementation strategies and hypothesizing causal pathways to improve screening with a decision aid. Three key task behaviors and four behavioral determinants emerged from 14 interviews. Implementation strategies were designed to target multiple levels of influence. Strategies included increasing provider self-efficacy toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, improving provider performance expectancy toward ordering a low-dose CT, increasing social influence toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, and addressing key facilitators to using the decision aid. This study contributes knowledge about theoretical determinants of key task behaviors associated with lung cancer screening. We designed implementation strategies according to causal pathways that can be replicated and tested at other institutions. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and to determine the contexts in which they can be effectively applied.

State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.

METHODS

The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.

RESULTS

Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.

Challenges Faced by Rural Primary Care Providers When Caring for COPD Patients in the Western United States

RATIONALE

Rural chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients have worse outcomes and higher mortality compared with urban patients. Reasons for these disparities likely include challenges to delivery of care that have not been explored.

OBJECTIVE

To determine challenges faced by rural primary care providers when caring for COPD patients.

METHODS

Rural primary care providers in 7 primarily western states were asked about barriers they experienced when caring for COPD patients.

RESULTS

A total of 71 rural primary care medical providers completed the survey, of which 51% were physicians and 49% were advanced practice providers (APPs). A total of 61% used Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease or American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines as an assessment and treatment resource. The presence of multiple chronic conditions and patient failure to recognize and report symptoms were the greatest barriers to diagnose COPD. A total of 89% of providers used spirometry to diagnose COPD, but only 62% were satisfied with access to spirometry. Despite recommendations, 41% of providers never test for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. A total of 87% were comfortable with their ability to assess symptoms, but only 11% used a guideline-recommended assessment tool. Although most providers were satisfied with their ability to treat symptoms and exacerbations, only 66% were content with their ability to prevent exacerbations. Fewer providers were happy with their access to pulmonologists (55%) or pulmonary rehabilitation (37%). Subgroup analyses revealed differences based on provider type (APP versus physician) and location (Colorado and Kansas versus other states), but not on population or practice size.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural providers face significant challenges when caring for COPD patients that should be targeted in future interventions to improve COPD outcomes.

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.

Limitations and perceived delays for diagnosis and staging of lung cancer in Portugal: A nationwide survey analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify the perception of physicians on the limitations and delays for diagnosing, staging and treatment of lung cancer in Portugal.

METHODS

Portuguese physicians were invited to participate an electronic survey (Feb-Apr-2020). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed, with categorical variables reported as absolute and relative frequencies, and continuous variables with non-normal distribution as median and interquartile range (IQR). The association between categorical variables was assessed through Pearson's chi-square test. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare categorical and continuous variables (Stata v.15.0).

RESULTS

Sixty-one physicians participated in the study (45 pulmonologists, 16 oncologists), with n = 26 exclusively assisting lung cancer patients. Most experts work in public hospitals (90.16%) in Lisbon (36.07%). During the last semester of 2019, responders performed a median of 85 (IQR 55-140) diagnoses of lung cancer. Factors preventing faster referral to the specialty included poor articulation between services (60.0%) and patients low economic/cultural level (44.26%). Obtaining National Drugs Authority authorization was one of the main reasons (75.41%) for delaying the begin of treatment. The cumulative lag-time from patients' admission until treatment ranged from 42-61 days. Experts believe that the time to diagnosis could be optimized in around 11.05 days [IQR 9.61-12.50]. Most physicians (88.52%) started treatment before biomarkers results motivated by performance status deterioration (65.57%) or high tumor burden (52.46%). Clinicians exclusively assisting lung cancer cases reported fewer delays for obtaining authorization for biomarkers analysis (p = 0.023). Higher waiting times for surgery (p = 0.001), radiotherapy (p = 0.004), immunotherapy (p = 0.003) were reported by professionals from public hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians believe that is possible to reduce delays in all stages of lung cancer diagnosis with further efforts from multidisciplinary teams and hospital administration.

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.

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.

Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

To be effective in reducing deaths from lung cancer among high-risk current and former smokers, screening with low-dose computed tomography must be performed periodically.

Objective

To examine lung cancer screening (LCS) adherence rates reported in the US, patient characteristics associated with adherence, and diagnostic testing rates after screening.

Data Sources

Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for articles published in the English language from January 1, 2011, through February 28, 2020.

Study Selection

Two reviewers independently selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies from 95 potentially relevant studies reporting patient LCS adherence.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted when at least 2 studies reported on the same outcome. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was LCS adherence after a baseline screening. Secondary measures were the patient characteristics associated with adherence and the rate of diagnostic testing after screening.

Results

Fifteen studies with a total of 16 863 individuals were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled LCS adherence rate across all follow-up periods (range, 12-36 months) was 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Regarding patient characteristics associated with adherence rates, current smokers were less likely to adhere to LCS than former smokers (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80); White patients were more likely to adhere to LCS than patients of races other than White (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.6); people 65 to 73 years of age were more likely to adhere to LCS than people 50 to 64 years of age (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9); and completion of 4 or more years of college was also associated with increased adherence compared with people not completing college (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1). Evidence was insufficient to evaluate diagnostic testing rates after abnormal screening scan results. The main source of variation was attributable to the eligibility criteria for screening used across studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the pooled LCS adherence rate after a baseline screening was far lower than those observed in large randomized clinical trials of screening. Interventions to promote adherence to screening should prioritize current smokers and smokers from minority populations.

Screening for Lung Cancer

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography provides an opportunity to save lives by early detection of the deadliest cancer in the United States. Uptake of lung cancer screening has been quite low but may be improving. Clinician and patient education, integration of lung cancer screening protocols into electronic medical records, support for shared decision making and tobacco cessation, and improved communication between referral centers and clinicians are all important areas for improvement for lung cancer screening to reach its potential in improving morbidity and mortality from lung cancer.

Effectiveness of a Patient Education Class to Enhance Knowledge about Lung Cancer Screening: a Quality Improvement Evaluation

Best practices to facilitate high-quality shared decision-making for lung cancer screening (LCS) are not well established. In our LCS program, patients are first referred to attend a free group education class on LCS, taught by designated clinician specialists, before a personal shared decision-making visit is scheduled. We conducted an evaluation on  the effectiveness of this class to enhance patient knowledge and shared decision-making about LCS. For quality improvement purposes, participants were asked to complete one-page surveys immediately before and after class to assess knowledge and decision-making capacity regarding LCS. To evaluate knowledge gained, we tabulated the distributions of correct, incorrect, unsure, and missing responses to eight true-false statements included on both pre- and post-class surveys and assessed pre-post differences in the number of correct responses. To evaluate decision-making capacity, we tabulated the distributions of post-class responses to items on decision uncertainty. From June 2017 to August 2018, 680 participants completed both pre- and post-class surveys. Participants had generally poor baseline knowledge about LCS. The proportion who responded correctly to each knowledge-related statement increased pre- to post-class, with a mean difference of 0.9 (paired t test, p < 0.0001) in the total number of correct responses between surveys. About 70% reported having all the information needed to make a screening decision. Our results suggest that a well-designed group education class is an effective system-level approach for initially educating and equipping patients with appropriate knowledge to make informed decisions about LCS.

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.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies).

INTERPRETATION

Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.

National Lung Cancer Screening Utilization Trends in the Veterans Health Administration

Background

Many Veterans are high risk for lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is an effective strategy for lung cancer early detection in a high-risk population. Our objective was to describe and compare annual and geographic utilization trends for LDCT screening in the Veteran's Health Administration (VHA).

Methods

A national retrospective cohort of screened Veterans from January 1, 2011 to May 31, 2018 was used to calculate annual and regional rates of initial LDCT utilization per 1000 eligible Veterans. We identified Veterans with a first LDCT exam using common procedure terminology codes G0297 or 71250 and described as "lung cancer screening," "screening," or "LCS." The number of screen-eligible Veterans per year was calculated as unique Veterans aged 55 to 80 years seen at a Veterans Affairs medical center (VAMC) in that year, multiplied by 32% (estimated proportion with eligible smoking history). We present 95% confidence intervals (CI) for rates.

Results

Screened Veterans had a mean age of 66.1 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.6); 95.5% male; 77.4% Caucasian. There were 119 300 LDCT exams, of which 80 819 (67.7%) were initial. Nationally, initial screens increased from 0 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.00) in 2011 to 29.6 (95% CI = 29.26 to 29.88) scans per 1000 eligible Veterans in 2018 (P_trend < .001). Initial screens increased over time within all geographic regions, most prominently in northeastern and Florida VAMCs.

Conclusion

VHA LDCT utilization increased from 2011 to 2018. However, overall utilization remained low. Future interventions are needed to increase lung cancer screening utilization among eligible Veterans.

Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part II: Progress toward Healthy People 2020 objectives for 4 common cancers

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries collaborate to provide annual updates on cancer occurrence and trends in the United States and to address a special topic of interest. Part I of this report focuses on national cancer statistics, and part 2 characterizes progress in achieving select Healthy People 2020 cancer objectives.

METHODS

For this report, the authors selected objectives-including death rates, cancer screening, and major risk factors-related to 4 common cancers (lung, colorectal, female breast, and prostate). Baseline values, recent values, and the percentage change from baseline to recent values were examined overall and by select sociodemographic characteristics. Data from national surveillance systems were obtained from the Healthy People 2020 website.

RESULTS

Targets for death rates were met overall and in most sociodemographic groups, but not among males, blacks, or individuals in rural areas, although these groups did experience larger decreases in rates compared with other groups. During 2007 through 2017, cancer death rates decreased 15% overall, ranging from -4% (rural) to -22% (metropolitan). Targets for breast and colorectal cancer screening were not yet met overall or in any sociodemographic groups except those with the highest educational attainment, whereas lung cancer screening was generally low (<10%). Targets were not yet met overall for cigarette smoking, recent smoking cessation, excessive alcohol use, or obesity but were met for secondhand smoke exposure and physical activity. Some sociodemographic groups did not meet targets or had less improvement than others toward reaching objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring trends in cancer risk factors, screening test use, and mortality can help assess the progress made toward decreasing the cancer burden in the United States. Although many interventions to reduce cancer risk factors and promote healthy behaviors are proven to work, they may not be equitably applied or work well in every community. Implementing cancer prevention and control interventions that are sustainable, focused, and culturally appropriate may boost success in communities with the greatest need, ensuring that all Americans can access a path to long, healthy, cancer-free lives.

Leveraging the Mammography Setting to Raise Awareness and Facilitate Referral to Lung Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Analysis

PURPOSE

Despite compelling support for the benefits of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer among high-risk individuals, awareness of LDCT screening and uptake remain low. The aim of this project was to explore the perspectives of ACR mammography screening program directors (MPDs) regarding efforts to raise LDCT screening awareness and appropriate referrals by identifying high-risk individuals participating in routine mammography.

METHODS

MPDs were recruited from ACR-accredited mammography facilities to participate in semistructured interviews after the completion of an online survey. Interviews were conducted over the telephone, recorded, transcribed, and subsequently reviewed for accuracy. Twenty MPDs were interviewed, and 18 interviews were transcribed and included in the thematic analysis. A theme codebook was developed, and all interviews were coded using NVivo by two trained reviewers.

RESULTS

Key themes were organized into four broad domains: (1) general attitudes toward the integration of LDCT screening, (2) identifying mammography patients at high risk for lung cancer, (3) counseling about LDCT screening, and (4) strategies to identify high-risk women and increase awareness and knowledge of LDCT screening. Overall, MPDs recognized the benefits of integrating mammography and LDCT screening and were receptive to educating and referring women for LDCT screening. However, training and workflow changes are needed to ensure successful implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative data suggest that MPDs are amenable to leveraging the mammography setting to engage women about LDCT screening; however, additional tools, training, and/or staffing may be necessary to leverage the full potential of reaching women at high risk for lung cancer within the context of mammographic screening.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium

Numerous organizations, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT for high risk adults who meet specific criteria. Despite recommendations and national coverage for screening eligible adults through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, LCS uptake in the United States remains low (<4%). In recognition of the need to improve and understand LCS across the population, as part of the larger Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening PRocess (PROSPR) consortium, the NCI (Bethesda, MD) funded the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium consisting of five diverse healthcare systems in Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Using various methods and data sources, the center aims to examine utilization and outcomes of LCS across diverse populations, and assess how variations in the implementation of LCS programs shape outcomes across the screening process. This commentary presents the PROSPR LCS process model, which outlines the interrelated steps needed to complete the screening process from risk assessment to treatment. In addition to guiding planned projects within the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium, this model provides insights on the complex steps needed to implement, evaluate, and improve LCS outcomes in community practice.

Survey of reported eye injuries from handheld laser devices in Canada

BACKGROUND

Unprotected exposure to handheld lasers can cause temporary or permanent vision loss depending on the laser classification.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the occurrence of, and details associated with, reported eye injuries resulting from handheld lasers.

METHODS

A 14-item questionnaire developed by Health Canada was distributed by the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and the Canadian Association of Optometrists to their respective members.

RESULTS

Questionnaire data were available from 909 respondents (263 ophthalmologists; 646 optometrists). Response rates were 23.1% and 12.7%, respectively. Validated data were available from 903 respondents, where 157 (17.4%) reported encountering at least 1 eye injury from a handheld laser. A total of 318 eye injuries were reported with an annual increase of 34.4% (95% CI 21.6%-48.7%, p < 0.0001) between 2013 and 2017. When respondents reported on only their most severe case, 77 (53.5%) reported vision loss that ranged from minor to severe, which persisted for more than 6 months in 42.9% of the cases. Another 59 (41.3%) noted the presence of retinal damage. The prevalence of eye injuries from handheld lasers was higher for males (82.5%) than females (14.0%), more frequent among those under the age of 50 years, and occurred predominately as a result of exposure from another person (67.6%) versus self-induced (26.1%) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this pilot study permits insight into the potential prevalence of injuries resulting from exposure to handheld laser devices in Canada, the results are not nationally representative. These findings support additional surveillance activities that may inform risk assessment and potential risk management strategies.

Low Dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening: The Background, the Guidelines, and a Tailored Approach to Patient Care

Despite lung cancer's prevalence and high burden of mortality, a useful screening program has taken a long time to develop. Now, most of the associated national organizations recommend low dose CT screening in the appropriate population. However, since the USPSTF guidelines were published, implementation has been slow. This article outlines the current evidence and provides additional resources to help physicians tailor a screening program for their patients.

Race and sex differences in patient provider communication and awareness of lung cancer screening in the health information National Trends Survey, 2013-2017

Despite demonstrated reduction in lung cancer mortality, lung cancer screening uptake has been low. We investigated differences in discussions with physicians about lung cancer screening and awareness using repeated cross-sectional data from three cycles [4.2 (2013); 4.4(2014) and 5.1 (2017)] of the Health Information National Trends Survey. We included 4207 respondents age 55 to 80 who responded to this question: 'In the past year, have you talked with your doctor about having a test to check for lung cancer?'. We used logistic regression accounting for complex sample weighting to generate multivariable adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The proportion of participants reporting lung cancer screening discussions was low and did not increase over time. In the most recent cycle, 15.7% of current smokers and 9.9% of former smokers said they had discussed screening. Compared to males, females were 32% less likely to report a lung cancer screening discussion (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50-0.93) and the association was strongest among non-Hispanic White females. Estimates were similar among never (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.43-1.20), current (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.39-1.36), and former (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.40-1.10) smokers. Females were 32% less likely than males to be aware of a lung cancer screening test (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.99) and this association was strongest for non-Hispanic Black females (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.19-0.77). Too few providers have discussed lung cancer screening with potentially eligible patients, particularly female patients. Further research is needed to evaluate possible causes for this finding.

Assessing Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography: Cross-Sectional Survey Results From the National Health Interview Survey

PURPOSE

Millions of women undergo mammography screening each year, presenting an opportunity for radiologists to identify women eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest CT and smoking cessation counseling. The purpose of our study was to estimate the proportion of women eligible for LCS and tobacco cessation counseling among women reporting mammography screening within the previous 2 years using nationally representative cross-sectional survey data.

METHODS

Women between the ages of 55 and 74 years in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey without history of lung or breast cancer who reported mammography use in the previous 2 years were included. The primary outcome was the weighted proportion of women eligible for LCS. Secondary outcomes included self-reported receipt of LCS and current smoking. Bivariate and multiple variable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between primary and secondary outcomes and sociodemographics, accounting for complex survey design elements.

RESULTS

Among 3,806 women meeting inclusion criteria, 7.1% were eligible for LCS and 9.8% were current smokers. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LCS-eligible women were more likely to be white, younger, and non-college-educated and have lower household incomes (all P < .001). Among all LCS-eligible women, 58% reported undergoing mammography screening within the previous 2 years. Among LCS-eligible women who underwent screening mammography, 7.9% reported undergoing LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of LCS-eligible women received mammography screening but did not receive LCS. Mammography encounters may represent prime opportunities to increase LCS participation among patients already receiving imaging-based screening services.

Developing and testing a brief clinic-based lung cancer screening decision aid for primary care settings

Background

Cancer screening‐related decisions require patients to evaluate complex medical information in short time frames, often with primary care providers (PCPs) they do not know. PCPs play an essential role in facilitating comprehensive shared decision making (SDM).

Objective

To develop and test a decision aid (DA) and SDM strategy for PCPs and high‐risk patients.

Design

The DA was tested with 20 dyads. Each dyad consisted of one PCP and one patient eligible for screening. A prospective, one‐group, mixed‐method study design measured fidelity, patient values, screening intention, acceptability and satisfaction.

Results

Four PCPs and 20 patients were recruited from an urban academic medical centre. Most patients were female (n = 14, 70%), most had completed high school (n = 15, 75%), and their average age was 65 years old. Half were African American. Patients and PCPs rated the DA as helpful, easy to read and use and acceptable in terms of time frame (observed t = 11.6 minutes, SD 2.7). Most patients (n = 16, 80%) indicated their intent to be screened. PCPs recommended screening for most patients (n = 17, 85%).

Conclusions

Evidence supports the value of lung cancer screening with LDCT for select high‐risk patients. Guidelines endorse engaging patients and their PCPs in SDM discussions. Our findings suggest that using a brief, interactive, plain‐language, culturally sensitive, theory‐based DA and SDM strategy is feasible, acceptable and may be essential to effectively translate and sustain the adoption of LDCT screening recommendations into the clinic setting.