1
|
Dickson JL, Hall H, Horst C, Tisi S, Verghese P, Mullin AM, Teague J, Farrelly L, Bowyer V, Gyertson K, Bojang F, Levermore C, Anastasiadis T, McCabe J, Navani N, Nair A, Devaraj A, Hackshaw A, Quaife SL, Janes SM. Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Public Health 2023; 8:e130-e140. [PMID: 36709053 PMCID: PMC7615156 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-2667(22)00258-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Revised: 09/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/27/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866. FINDINGS Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity). INTERPRETATION Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response. FUNDING GRAIL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Helen Hall
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Carolyn Horst
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sophie Tisi
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Priyam Verghese
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Mullin
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jon Teague
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Laura Farrelly
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Vicky Bowyer
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Kylie Gyertson
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Fanta Bojang
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Claire Levermore
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - John McCabe
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Allan Hackshaw
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sam M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rustagi AS, Byers AL, Keyhani S. Likelihood of Lung Cancer Screening by Poor Health Status and Race and Ethnicity in US Adults, 2017 to 2020. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e225318. [PMID: 35357450 PMCID: PMC8972038 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.5318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Lung cancer screening (LCS) via low-dose chest computed tomography can prevent mortality through surgical resection of early-stage cancers, but it is unknown whether poor health is associated with screening. Though LCS may be associated with better outcomes for non-Hispanic Black individuals, it is unknown whether racial or ethnic disparities exist in LCS use. OBJECTIVE To determine whether health status is associated with LCS and whether racial or ethnic disparities are associated with LCS independently of health status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional, population-based study of community-dwelling US adults used data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System annual surveys, 2017 to 2020. Participants were aged 55 to 79 years, with a less than 30 pack-year smoking history, and were current smokers or those who quit within 15 years. Data were analyzed from August to November 2021. EXPOSURES Self-reported health status and race and ethnicity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Self-reported LCS in the last 12 months. RESULTS Of 14 550 individuals (7802 men [55.5%]; 7527 [55.0%] aged 65-79 years [percentages are weighted]), representing 3.68 million US residents, 17.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-18.9%) reported undergoing LCS. The prevalence of LCS was lower among non-Hispanic Black than non-Hispanic White individuals but not to a significant degree (12.0% [95% CI, 4.3%-19.7%] vs 17.5% [95% CI, 15.6%-19.5%]; P = .57). Health status was associated with LCS: 468 individuals in poor health vs 96 individuals in excellent health reported LCS (25.2% [95% CI, 20.6%-29.9%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.3%]; P < .001), and those with difficulty climbing stairs were more likely to report LCS than those without this functional limitation. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, functional status, and comorbidities, self-rated health status remained associated with LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 per each 1-step decline in health; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), and non-Hispanic Black individuals were 53% less likely to report LCS than non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses in which health was alternatively quantified as number of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE LCS in the US is more common among those who may be less likely to benefit from screening because of poor underlying health. Furthermore, racial or ethnic disparities were evident after accounting for health status, with non-Hispanic Black individuals nearly half as likely as non-Hispanic White individuals to report LCS despite the potential for greater benefit of screening this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison S. Rustagi
- Medical Service, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Amy L. Byers
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
- Research Service, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco
- Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Salomeh Keyhani
- Medical Service, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Williams RM, Li T, Luta G, Wang MQ, Adams-Campbell L, Meza R, Tammemägi MC, Taylor KL. Lung cancer screening use and implications of varying eligibility criteria by race and ethnicity: 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. Cancer 2022; 128:1812-1819. [PMID: 35201610 PMCID: PMC9007861 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2021] [Revised: 11/12/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce racial disparities that resulted from the 2013 USPSTF criteria. The annual LCS rate has risen slowly since the 2013 USPSTF screening recommendations. Using the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this study 1) describes LCS use in 2019, 2) compares the percent eligible for LCS using the 2013 versus 2021 USPSTF criteria, and 3) determines the percent eligible using the more detailed PLCOm2012Race3L risk-prediction model. METHODS The analysis included 41,544 individuals with a smoking history from states participating in the BRFSS LCS module who were ≥50 years old. RESULTS Using the 2013 USPSTF criteria, 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.0-22.4) of eligible individuals underwent LCS in 2019. The 2013 USPSTF criteria was compared to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, and the overall proportion eligible increased from 21.0% (95% CI, 20.2-21.8) to 34.7% (95 CI, 33.8-35.6). Applying the 2021 criteria, the proportion eligible by race was 35.8% (95% CI, 34.8-36.7) among Whites, 28.5% (95% CI, 25.2-31.9) among Blacks, and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.4-23.7) among Hispanics. Using the 1.0% 6-year threshold that is comparable to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012Race3L model selected more individuals overall and by race. CONCLUSIONS Using data from 20 states and using multiple imputation, higher LCS rates have been reported compared to prior BRFSS data. The 2021 expanded criteria will result in a greater number of screen-eligible individuals. However, risk-based screening that uses additional risk factors may be more inclusive overall and across subgroups. LAY SUMMARY In 2013, lung cancer screening (lung screening) was recommended for high risk individuals. The annual rate of lung screening has risen slowly, particularly among Black individuals. In part, this racial disparity resulted in expanded 2021 criteria. Survey data was used to: 1) describe the number of people screened in 2019, 2) compare the percent eligible for lung screening using the 2013 versus 2021 guidelines, and 3) determine the percent eligible using more detailed criteria. Lung screening rates increased in 2019, and the 2021 criteria will result in more individuals eligible for screening. Using additional criteria may identify more individuals eligible for lung screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Randi M Williams
- Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Tengfei Li
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - George Luta
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Min Qi Wang
- School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
| | - Lucile Adams-Campbell
- Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Rafael Meza
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Martin C Tammemägi
- Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kathryn L Taylor
- Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|