Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

Indigenous access to clinical services along the lung cancer treatment pathway: a review of current evidence

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is a deadly cancer. Early diagnosis and access to timely treatment are essential to maximizing the likelihood of survival. Indigenous peoples experience enduring disparities in lung cancer survival, and disparities in access to and through lung cancer services is one of the important drivers of these disparities. In this manuscript, we aimed to examine the current evidence on disparities in Indigenous access to services along the lung cancer treatment pathway.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted for all manuscripts and reports published up until July 20, 2022, using Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Following the identification of eligible literature, full-text versions were scanned for relevance for inclusion in this review, and relevant information was extracted. After scanning 1,459 documents for inclusion, our final review included 36 manuscripts and reports that included information on lung cancer service access for Indigenous peoples relative to non-Indigenous peoples. These documents included data from Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the USA (including Hawai'i).

RESULTS

Our review found evidence of disparities in access to, and the journey through, lung cancer care for Indigenous peoples. Disparities were most obvious in access to early detection and surgery, with inconsistent evidence regarding other components of the pathway.

CONCLUSION

These observations are made amid relatively scant data in a global sense, highlighting the need for improved data collection and monitoring of cancer care and outcomes for Indigenous peoples worldwide. Access to early detection and guideline-concordant treatment are essential to addressing enduring disparities in cancer survival experienced by Indigenous peoples globally.

Healthcare disparities, screening, and molecular testing in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a review

Inequitable access to care continues to hinder improvements in diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. This review describes healthcare disparities in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States, focusing on racial, ethnic, sex-based, and socioeconomic trends. Furthermore, strategies to address disparities, overcome challenges, and improve patient outcomes are proposed. Barriers exist across lung cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment regimens, varying by sex, age, race and ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Incidence and mortality rates of lung cancer are higher among Black men than White men, and incidences in young women are substantially greater than in young men. Disparities may be attributed to geographic differences in screening access, with correlating higher incidence and mortality rates in rural versus urban areas. Lower socioeconomic status is also linked to lower survival rates. Several strategies could help reduce disparities and improve outcomes. Current guidelines could improve screening eligibility by incorporating sex, race, and socioeconomic status variables. Patient and clinician education on screening guidelines and patient-level barriers to care are key, and biomarker testing is critical since ~ 70% of patients with NSCLC have an actionable biomarker. Timely diagnosis, staging, and comprehensive biomarker testing, including cell-free DNA liquid biopsy, may provide valuable treatment guidance for patients with NSCLC. Efforts to improve lung cancer screening and biomarker testing access, decrease bias, and improve education about screening and testing are needed to reduce healthcare disparities in NSCLC.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Current challenges and future directions for shared decision making for lung cancer screening

Shared decision making (SDM) between health care professionals and patients is essential to help patients make well informed choices about lung cancer screening (LCS). Patients who participate in SDM have greater LCS knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and improved adherence to annual screening compared with patients who do not participate in SDM. SDM tools are acceptable to patients and clinicians. The importance of SDM in LCS is emphasized in recommendations from professional organizations and highlighted as a priority in the 2022 President's Cancer Panel Report. The updated 2022 national coverage determination from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reaffirms the value of SDM in offering LCS to eligible beneficiaries. The Shared Decision-Making Task Group of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable undertook a group consensus process to identify priorities for research and implementation related to SDM for LCS and then evaluated current knowledge in these areas. Priority areas included: (1) developing feasible, adaptable SDM training programs for health care professionals; (2) understanding the impact of alternative health system LCS models on SDM practice and outcomes; (3) developing and evaluating new patient decision aids for use with diverse populations and in varied settings; (4) offering conceptual clarity about what constitutes a high-quality decision and developing appropriate quality measures; and (5) studying the use of prediction-augmented screening to support SDM in practice. Gaps in current research in all areas were observed. The authors conclude with a research and implementation agenda to advance the quality and implementation of SDM for persons who might benefit from LCS.

The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people.

DESIGN

Model-based projections.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

People from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014-2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria.

MEASUREMENTS

Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. "High-benefit" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening.

RESULTS

The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; P < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; P < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [P < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [P = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [P = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities.

LIMITATION

The results were based on model projections.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.

Acquisition parameters influence AI recognition of race in chest x-rays and mitigating these factors reduces underdiagnosis bias

A core motivation for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is to reduce existing healthcare disparities. Yet, recent studies have demonstrated two distinct findings: (1) AI models can show performance biases in underserved populations, and (2) these same models can be directly trained to recognize patient demographics, such as predicting self-reported race from medical images alone. Here, we investigate how these findings may be related, with an end goal of reducing a previously identified underdiagnosis bias. Using two popular chest x-ray datasets, we first demonstrate that technical parameters related to image acquisition and processing influence AI models trained to predict patient race, where these results partly reflect underlying biases in the original clinical datasets. We then find that mitigating the observed differences through a demographics-independent calibration strategy reduces the previously identified bias. While many factors likely contribute to AI bias and demographics prediction, these results highlight the importance of carefully considering data acquisition and processing parameters in AI development and healthcare equity more broadly.

Early Detection and Interception of Lung Cancer

Recent advances in lung cancer treatment have led to dramatic improvements in 5-year survival rates. And yet, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality, in large part, because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, when cure is no longer possible. Lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential for intercepting the disease at an earlier stage. Unfortunately, LCS has been poorly adopted in the United States, with less than 5% of eligible patients being screened nationally. This article will describe the data supporting LCS, the obstacles to LCS implementation, and the promising opportunities that lie ahead.

Persistent race- and sex-based disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate race- and sex-based disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility under the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network lung cancer screening guidelines.

METHODS

Participants in the Southern Community Cohort Study with a smoking history diagnosed with lung cancer from 2002 to 2021 were identified for analysis. Differences in age at lung cancer diagnosis and smoking characteristics were evaluated among 4 groups: Black men, Black women, White men, and White women.

RESULTS

A total of 2011 patients with lung cancer met study inclusion criteria, of whom 968 (48.1%) were women and 1248 (62.1%) were Black. Under the 2013 guideline, Black men with lung cancer were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening when compared with White men with lung cancer (37.7% vs 62.4%; P < .001), and Black women with lung cancer were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening when compared with White women with lung cancer (27.8% vs 56.7%; P < .001). Under the 2021 guideline, 62.6% of Black and 73.8% of White men (P < .001) with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening, resulting in an 11.2 percentage point difference in screening eligibility between Black and White men. Under the 2021 guideline, 50.3% of Black and 74.9% of White (P < .001) women with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening; notably, there remained a 24.6 percentage point difference in screening eligibility between Black and White women. In multivariable-adjusted analysis, under the 2021 USPSTF guideline, Black men with lung cancer had 46% lower odds of being eligible for screening compared with White men with lung cancer (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.76; P < .001) and Black women with lung cancer had 66% lower odds of being eligible for screening compared with White women with lung cancer (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P < .001). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline increased the proportion of patients with lung cancer eligible for screening in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patients with lung cancer in the Southern Community Cohort Study, there remained a large gap in lung cancer screening eligibility between Black and White men and women under the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force guideline. Only 50% of Black women and 63% of Black men diagnosed with lung cancer would have qualified for screening.

Does the revised LDCT lung cancer screening guideline bridge the racial disparities gap: Results from the health and retirement study

PURPOSE

This study examined racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility rates using 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and the revised 2021 guidelines.

METHODS

The study utilized a retrospective and cross-sectional research design by analyzing data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). N = 2,823 respondents aged 50-80 who self-reported current smoking were included in the analyses. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the changed status of LDCT screening eligibility based on the revised 2021 guidelines by race/ethnicity after adjusting for respondent demographics.

RESULTS

Our study found substantial increases in screening eligibility rates across racial and ethnic groups when comparing the original and revised guidelines. The largest increase was observed among Black people (174%), Hispanics (152%), those in the other category (118%), and Whites who smoke (80.8%). When comparing original screening guidelines to revised guidelines, Whites who smoke had the highest percentage of changes from "not eligible" to "eligible" (28.3%), followed by individuals in the "other" category (28.1%), Black people (23.2%) and Hispanics who smoke (18.3%) (p < 0.001). Binary logistic regression results further showed that Black people who smoke (OR = 0.71, p = 0.001), as well as Hispanics who smoke (OR=0.54, p < 0.001), were less likely to change from not eligible to eligible for screening compared to Whites who smoke after adopting the revised screening guidelines. Based on the absolute differences in screening eligibility rates between Whites and other racial/ethnic groups, the disparities may have widened under the new guidelines, particularly with larger absolute differences observed between Whites, Black people, and Hispanics.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights racial/ethnic disparities in LDCT screening eligibility among people who currently smoke. While the revised USPSTF guidelines increased screening eligibility for racial and ethnic minorities, they did not eliminate these disparities and may have widened under the new guidelines. Targeted interventions and policies are necessary to address barriers faced by underrepresented populations and promote equitable access to lung cancer screening.

RadioGraphics Update: The 10 Pillars of Lung Cancer Screening-Rationale and Logistics of a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Editor's Note.-RadioGraphics Update articles supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics. These updates, written by at least one author of the previous article, provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes.

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.

What's new in thoracic oncology

Many changes have occurred in the field of thoracic surgery over the last several years. In this review, we will discuss new diagnostic techniques for lung cancer, innovations in surgery, and major updates on latest treatment options including immunotherapy. All these have significantly started to change our approach toward the management of lung cancer and have great potential to improve the lives of our patients afflicted with this disease.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US

Importance

The revised 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening have been shown to reduce disparities in screening eligibility and performance between African American and White individuals vs the 2013 guidelines. However, potential disparities across other racial and ethnic groups in the US remain unknown. Risk model-based screening may reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance, but neither validation of key risk prediction models nor their screening performance has been examined by race and ethnicity.

Objective

To validate and recalibrate the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 (PLCOm2012) model-a well-established risk prediction model based on a predominantly White population-across races and ethnicities in the US and evaluate racial and ethnic disparities and screening performance through risk-based screening using PLCOm2012 vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a population-based cohort design, the Multiethnic Cohort Study enrolled participants in 1993-1996, followed up through December 31, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2022, to May 19. 2023. A total of 105 261 adults with a smoking history were included.

Exposures

The 6-year lung cancer risk was calculated through recalibrated PLCOm2012 (ie, PLCOm2012-Update) and screening eligibility based on a 6-year risk threshold greater than or equal to 1.3%, yielding similar eligibility as the USPSTF 2021 guidelines.

Outcomes

Predictive accuracy, screening eligibility-incidence (E-I) ratio (ie, ratio of the number of eligible to incident cases), and screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen to detect 1 lung cancer).

Results

Of 105 261 participants (60 011 [57.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), consisting of 19 258 (18.3%) African American, 27 227 (25.9%) Japanese American, 21 383 (20.3%) Latino, 8368 (7.9%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 29 025 (27.6%) White individuals, 1464 (1.4%) developed lung cancer within 6 years from enrollment. The PLCOm2012-Update showed good predictive accuracy across races and ethnicities (area under the curve, 0.72-0.82). The USPSTF 2021 criteria yielded a large disparity among African American individuals, whose E-I ratio was 53% lower vs White individuals (E-I ratio: 9.5 vs 20.3; P < .001). Under the risk-based screening (PLCOm2012-Update 6-year risk ≥1.3%), the disparity between African American and White individuals was substantially reduced (E-I ratio: 15.9 vs 18.4; P < .001), with minimal disparities observed in persons of other minoritized groups, including Japanese American, Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Risk-based screening yielded superior overall and race and ethnicity-specific performance to the USPSTF 2021 criteria, with higher overall sensitivity (67.2% vs 57.7%) and lower number needed to screen (26 vs 30) at similar specificity (76.6%).

Conclusions

The findings of this cohort study suggest that risk-based lung cancer screening can reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance across races and ethnicities vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

Fostering Patient-Centered Equitable Care in Radiology: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Patient-centered care (PCC) and equity are two of the six core domains of quality health care, according to the Institute of Medicine. Exceptional imaging care requires radiology practices to provide patient-centered (i.e., respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values) and equitable (i.e., does not vary in quality on the basis of gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status) care. Specific barriers that prevent the delivery of patient-centered equitable care include information gaps, breaches of trust, organizational medical culture, and financial incentives. Information gaps limit practitioners in understanding the lived experience of patients. Breaches of trust prevent patients from seeking needed medical care. Organizational medical cultures may not be centered around patient experiences. Financial incentives can impede practitioners' ability to spend the time and resources required to meet patient goals and needs. Intentional approaches that integrate core principles in both PCC and health equity are required to deliver high-quality patient-centered imaging care for diverse patient populations. The purpose of this AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review is to review the origins of the PCC movement in radiology, characterize connections between the PCC and health equity movements, and describe concrete examples of ways to foster patient-centered equitable care in radiology.

Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care and Pulmonary Clinics: Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Electronic Health Record-Integrated Everyday Shared Decision-Making Tool and Clinician-Facing Prompts

BACKGROUND

Although low-dose CT (LDCT) scan imaging lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality, it remains underused. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended to assess the balance of benefits and harms for each patient.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do clinician-facing electronic health record (EHR) prompts and an EHR-integrated everyday SDM tool designed to support routine incorporation of SDM into primary care improve LDCT scan imaging ordering and completion?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A preintervention and postintervention analysis was conducted in 30 primary care and four pulmonary clinics for visits with patients who met United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for LCS. Propensity scores were used to adjust for covariates. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the expected benefit from screening (high benefit vs intermediate benefit), pulmonologist involvement (ie, whether the patient was seen in a pulmonary clinic in addition to a primary care clinic), sex, and race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

In the 12-month preintervention phase among 1,090 eligible patients, 77 patients (7.1%) had LDCT scan imaging orders and 48 patients (4.4%) completed screenings. In the 9-month intervention phase among 1,026 eligible patients, 280 patients (27.3%) had LDCT scan imaging orders and 182 patients (17.7%) completed screenings. Adjusted ORs were 4.9 (95% CI, 3.4-6.9; P < .001) and 4.7 (95% CI, 3.1-7.1; P < .001) for LDCT imaging ordering and completion, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed increases in ordering and completion for all patient subgroups. In the intervention phase, the SDM tool was used by 23 of 102 ordering providers (22.5%) and for 69 of 274 patients (25.2%) for whom LDCT scan imaging was ordered and who needed SDM at the time of ordering.

INTERPRETATION

Clinician-facing EHR prompts and an EHR-integrated everyday SDM tool are promising approaches to improving LCS in the primary care setting. However, room for improvement remains. As such, further research is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04498052; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Considerations for using predictive models that include race as an input variable: The case study of lung cancer screening

Indiscriminate use of predictive models incorporating race can reinforce biases present in source data and lead to an exacerbation of health disparities. In some countries, such as the United States, there is therefore a push to remove race from prediction models; however, there are still many prediction models that use race as an input. Biomedical informaticists who are given the responsibility of using these predictive models in healthcare environments are likely to be faced with questions like how to deal with race covariates in these models. Thus, there is a need for a pragmatic framework to help model users think through how to include race in their chosen model so as to avoid inadvertently exacerbating disparities. In this paper, we use the case study of lung cancer screening to propose a simple framework to guide how model users can approach the use (or non-use) of race inputs in the predictive models they are tasked with leveraging in electronic health records and clinical workflows.

The Impact of Downstream Procedures on Lung Cancer Screening Adherence

OBJECTIVE

(1) Evaluate downstream procedures after lung cancer screening (LCS), including imaging and invasive procedures, in screened individuals without screen-detected lung cancer. (2) Determine the association between repeat LCS and downstream procedures and patient characteristics.

METHODS

Individuals receiving LCS between January 1, 2015, and November 30, 2020, from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database were included. Individuals with lung cancer after LCS were excluded. We determined frequency and costs of downstream procedures after LCS, including diagnostic imaging (chest CT, PET, or CT using fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging) and invasive procedures (bronchoscopy, needle biopsy, thoracic surgery). A generalized estimating equation was used to model repeat LCS as a function of downstream procedures and patient characteristics. The primary outcome was repeat screening within 1 year of index LCS, and a secondary analysis evaluated the outcome of repeat screening with 2 years of index LCS.

RESULTS

In all, 23,640 individuals receiving 30,521 LCS examinations were included in the primary analysis; 17.7% of LCS examinations (5,414 of 30,521) prompted downstream testing, with chest CT within 4 months being most common (9.1%, 2,769 of 30,521). At multivariable analysis adjusted for patient characteristics, the occurrence of a downstream diagnostic imaging test or invasive procedure was associated with a decreased likelihood of repeat annual LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.38, 0.34-0.44; adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.63-0.90, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Downstream imaging and invasive procedures after LCS are potential barriers to LCS adherence. Efforts to reduce false-positives at LCS and reduce patient costs from downstream procedures are likely necessary to ensure that downstream workup after LCS does not discourage screening adherence.

The Role of Sublobar Resection for the Surgical Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cancer killer in the world. The standard of care for surgical treatment of non-small cell lung cancer has been lobectomy. Recent studies have identified that sublobar resection has non-inferior survival rates compared to lobectomy, however. Sublobar resection may increase the number of patients who can tolerate surgery and reduce postoperative pulmonary decline. Sublobar resection appears to have equivalent results to surgery in patients with small, peripheral tumors and no lymph node disease. As the utilization of segmentectomy increases, there may be some centers that perform this operation more than other centers. Care must be taken to ensure that all patients have access to this modality. Future investigations should focus on examining the outcomes from segmentectomy as it is applied more widely. When employed on a broad scale, morbidity and survival rates should be monitored. As segmentectomy is performed more frequently, patients may experience improved postoperative quality of life while maintaining the same oncologic benefit.

Lung cancer screening

Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.

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.

Lung Cancer Screening Outreach Program in an Urban Native American Clinic

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate uptake of lung cancer screening in an urban Native American clinic using 2 culturally targeted promotion strategies.

METHODS

Patients eligible for lung cancer screening from July 2019 to July 2021 were randomized to receive either a single culturally-targeted mailer from the clinic regarding possible eligibility for screening, or the same mailer plus a follow-up text message and additional mailing.

RESULTS

Overall, there were low rates of shared decision-making visit scheduling (8.5%) with no difference between promotion strategy groups (9.4% in control group vs 7.7% in culturally-targeted outreach group). Only about 50% of the lung cancer screening CT exams ordered were completed and returned to the clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

While there was no difference between arms in this intervention, 8.5% of the sample did complete a shared decision-making visit after these low-cost interventions. The gap between the number of screening CTs ordered and number who completed the CT represents an area where further interventions should focus.

One size does not fit all: Evaluating disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility amongst the Hispanic population

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanic men. We assessed the tendencies for screening eligibility amongst Hispanic prior to LC diagnosis according to the NCCN and The USPSTF guidelines available at the time of diagnosis. We conducted an observational study in patients diagnosed with LC from 2016 to 2019. Charts were reviewed to assess their screening eligibility prior to LC. The chi-square test was used to examine the association between race and ethnicity with each screening criteria. A total of 530 subjects were reviewed, of which 432 were included in the analysis. One hundred fifty-three and 245 subjects were ineligible for screening under NCCN and USPSTF criteria prior to their LC diagnosis. Twenty-eight of the subjects who did not fulfill NCCN criteria identified as AA and 12 as Hispanics. Forty and 20 of the USPSTF screening ineligible subjects identified as AA and Hispanics. There was a significant association between screening eligibility criteria in Hispanics, with 52% Hispanic subjects meeting NCCN criteria compared to only 20% who met USPSTF (p=0.0184). There was also a significant association between ethnicity and USPSTF eligibility criteria (p=0.0166), as 80% of Hispanic subjects were screening ineligible under USPSTF criteria compared to 56% of non-Hispanic or other. In our study, Hispanics had significantly lower tendencies of meeting the USPSTF LC screening eligibility criteria than non-Hispanics or other. Interestingly, a proportionally higher number of Hispanics who were ineligible under USPSTF criteria met NCCN criteria. These findings suggest that leniency in the screening criteria can possibly lead to earlier detection of LC in high-risk individuals. Recently, USPSTF has modified their criteria which may benefit more of these individuals. To improve rates of screening and overall mortality of minorities, organizations should continue to re-evaluate and liberalize their screening guidelines.

Analysis of Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening by Race After 2021 Changes to US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Guidelines

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer incidence and mortality have disproportionate consequences for racial and ethnic minority populations. The extent to which the 2021 changes to the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines have reduced the racial disparity gap in lung cancer screening eligibility is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the consequences of the changes in USPSTF low-dose computed tomography eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening between 2013 and 2021 among Black and White community-dwelling adults.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a prospective longitudinal cohort study of community-dwelling Black and White adults 45 years and older who were initially recruited across the US between January 2003 and October 2007, with ongoing follow-up. All participants who would have been potentially eligible for lung cancer screening based on the 2021 USPSTF guidelines (N = 14 285) were included. Follow-up data for the current cohort study were collected and analyzed between January 2013 and December 2017, with final analysis performed in 2021.

EXPOSURES

Self-reported Black vs White race.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Differences in the proportion of Black vs White participants eligible for lung cancer screening according to 2013 and 2021 guidelines were assessed using modified Poisson models with robust SEs. Associations between important covariates (demographic characteristics and social factors associated with health), including interaction and dissimilarity indices (2 measures of residential segregation), and differences in screening eligibility were also examined.

RESULTS

Among 14 285 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [7.5] years; 7675 men [53.7%]), 5787 (40.5%) self-identified as Black and 8498 (59.5%) as White. Based on the 2013 USPSTF guidelines, 1109 of 5787 Black participants (19.2%) and 2313 of 8498 White participants (27.2%) were eligible for lung cancer screening (difference, -8.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.44 to -6.67 percentage points). Based on the 2021 guidelines, 1667 of 5787 Black participants (28.8%) and 2940 of 8498 White participants (34.6%) were eligible for screening (difference, -5.73 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.28 to -4.19 percentage points). After adjustment for differences in individual characteristics and residential segregation, the 2013 difference in screening eligibility among Black vs White participants was -12.66 percentage points (95% CI, -14.71 to -10.61 percentage points), and the 2021 difference was -12.15 percentage points (95% CI, -14.37 to -9.93 percentage points).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, 2021 changes to the USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines were associated with reductions in but not elimination of existing eligibility disparities in lung cancer screening among Black and White adults. These findings suggest that accounting for factors beyond age and pack-years of smoking is needed when tailoring guidelines to improve screening eligibility among groups at high risk of lung cancer.

Lung-RADS Category 3 and 4 Nodules on Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND. Lung-RADS category 3 and 4 nodules account for most screening-detected lung cancers and are considered actionable nodules with management implications. The cancer frequency among such nodules is estimated in the Lung-RADS recommendations and has been investigated primarily by means of retrospectively assigned Lung-RADS classifications. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency of cancer among lung nodules assigned Lung-RADS category 3 or 4 at lung cancer screening (LCS) in clinical practice and to evaluate factors that affect the cancer frequency within each category. METHODS. This retrospective study was based on review of clinical radiology reports of 9148 consecutive low-dose CT LCS examinations performed for 4798 patients between June 2014 and January 2021 as part of an established LCS program. Unique nodules assigned Lung-RADS category 3 or 4 (4A, 4B, or 4X) that were clinically categorized as benign or malignant in a multidisciplinary conference that considered histologic analysis and follow-up imaging were selected for further analysis. Benign diagnoses based on stability required at least 12 months of follow-up imaging. Indeterminate nodules were excluded. Cancer frequencies were evaluated. RESULTS. Of the 9148 LCS examinations, 857 (9.4%) were assigned Lung-RADS category 3, and 721 (7.9%) were assigned category 4. The final analysis included 1297 unique nodules in 1139 patients (598 men, 541 women; mean age, 66.0 ± 6.3 years). A total of 1108 of 1297 (85.4%) nodules were deemed benign, and 189 of 1297 (14.6%) were deemed malignant. The frequencies of malignancy of category 3, 4A, 4B, and 4X nodules were 3.9%, 15.5%, 36.3%, and 76.8%. A total of 45 of 46 (97.8%) endobronchial nodules (all category 4A) were deemed benign on the basis of resolution. Cancer frequency was 13.1% for solid, 24.4% for part-solid, and 13.5% for ground-glass nodules. CONCLUSION. In the application of Lung-RADS to LCS clinical practice, the frequency of Lung-RADS category 3 and 4 nodules and the cancer frequency in these categories were higher than the prevalence and cancer risk estimated for category 3 and 4 nodules in the Lung-RADS recommendations and those reported in earlier studies in which category assignments were retrospective. Nearly all endobronchial category 4A nodules were benign. CLINICAL IMPACT. Future Lung-RADS iterations should consider the findings of this study from real-world practice to improve the clinical utility of the system.

Likelihood of Lung Cancer Screening by Poor Health Status and Race and Ethnicity in US Adults, 2017 to 2020

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.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests: Current Progress and Future Perspectives

Advances in cancer screening and early detection methodologies may lead to the detection of precancerous lesions or early-stage cancer. The development of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests may aid in this challenge. Furthermore, MCED tests have the potential to address early detection gaps for cancers with and without screening modalities and lessen cancer disparities, but many unknowns remain. In this issue, Clarke and colleagues describe stage- and cancer-specific incidence and survival, derived from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program Data, stratified by race/ethnicity and sex. The investigators discuss the potential to identify earlier-stage cancers (stage shift) that could improve overall patient outcomes. In a simulation model, the authors found fewer cancer-related deaths when cancers were down-staged at the time of diagnosis. In this commentary, we discuss some unanswered questions in using MCED tests for screening, as well as what stage shifting may actually mean for patient outcomes. See related article by Clarke et al., p. 521.