Comorbidity Profiles and Lung Cancer Screening among Older Adults: U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2017 to 2019

A Brief Report of Lung Cancer Screening Utilization Before, During, and in the Later Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

Introduction

Although COVID-19 has affected health care and screening utilization, its impact on lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake remains unclear. Our study investigated LCS utilization and associated predictors among adults eligible for LCS before (2019), during (2020-2021), and at a later stage (2022) of COVID-19.

Methods

We used cross-sectional, nationally representative, population-based data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System over 4 consecutive years: 2019 (n = 4484; weighted n = 1,559,37), 2020 (n = 1239; weighted n = 200,301), 2021 (n = 1673; weighted n = 668,359), and 2022 (n = 20,804; weighted n = 9,458,907). The outcome was self-reported LCS uptake (0 = did not have LCS in the past 12 mo and 1 = underwent LCS in the past 12 mo). We conducted weighted statistics and multivariable logistic regression.

Results

Overall, of 11,886,704 million individuals eligible for LCS, 2,129,900 received LCS in 4 years (2019-2022). National rates of LCS among individuals eligible for screening were 16.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]:14.4-18.5), 19.4% (95% CI:15.3-24.3), 18.3% (95% CI:15.6-21.3), and 18.1% (95% CI:17.1-19.2) in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. Respondents reporting lung disease and cancer (other than lung cancer) history were more likely to receive LCS across all 4 years. During the pandemic (2020), Hispanic (versus White), and rural (versus urban) residents had lower odds of LCS utilization. In 2022, men had increased odds of reporting LCS use relative to women. No sex differences in LCS use were observed in previous years.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate consistently low LCS utilization (<20%) over 4 years. Nationwide efforts to boost LCS awareness and utilization are essential for mitigating the lung cancer burden in the United States.

Patient Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors

Importance

Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography is associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality, but uptake is low in the US; understanding how patients make decisions to engage with lung cancer screening is critical for increasing uptake. Prior research has focused on individual-level psychosocial factors, but environmental factors (eg, historical contexts that include experiencing racism) and modifying factors-those that can be changed to make it easier or harder to undergo screening-also likely affect screening decisions.

Objective

To investigate environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influencing lung cancer screening decision-making and develop a conceptual framework depicting relationships between these factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multimethod qualitative study was conducted from December 2021 to June 2022 using virtual semistructured interviews and 4 focus groups (3-4 participants per group). All participants met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening (ie, age 50-80 years, at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years). Screening-eligible US participants were recruited using an online panel.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Key factors influencing screening decisions (eg, knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators) were the main outcome. A theory-informed, iterative inductive-deductive approach was applied to analyze data and develop a conceptual framework summarizing results.

Results

Among 34 total participants (interviews, 20 [59%]; focus groups, 14 [41%]), mean (SD) age was 59.1 (4.8) years and 20 (59%) identified as female. Half had a household income below $20 000 (17 [50%]). Participants emphasized historical and present-day racism as critical factors contributing to mistrust of health care practitioners and avoidance of medical procedures like screening. Participants reported that other factors, such as public transportation availability, also influenced decisions. Additionally, participants described psychosocial processes involved in decisions, such as perceived screening benefits, lung cancer risk appraisal, and fear of a cancer diagnosis or harmful encounters with practitioners. In addition, participants identified modifying factors (eg, insurance coverage) that could make receiving screening easier or harder.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study of patient lung cancer screening decisions, environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influenced screening decisions. The findings suggest that systems-level interventions, such as those that help practitioners understand and discuss patients' prior negative health care experiences, are needed to promote effective screening decision-making.

Are comorbidities associated with differences in healthcare charges among lung cancer patients in US hospitals? Focusing on variances by patient and socioeconomic factors

OBJECTIVE

The clinical aspects of lung cancer patients are well-studied. However, healthcare charge patterns have yet to be explored through a large-scale representative population-based sample investigating differences by socioeconomic factors and comorbidities.

AIM

To identify how comorbidities associated with healthcare charges among lung cancer patients.

METHODS

We examined the characteristics of the patient sample and the association between comorbidity status (diabetes, hypertension, or both) and healthcare charge. Multivariate survey linear regression models were used to estimate the association. We also investigated sub-group association through various patient and socioeconomic factors.

RESULTS

Of 212,745 lung cancer patients, 68.5% had diabetes and/or hypertension. Hospital charges were higher in the population with comorbidities. The results showed that lung cancer patients with comorbidities had 9.4%, 5.1%, and 12.0% (with diabetes, hypertension, and both, respectively) higher hospital charges than those without comorbidities. In sub-group analysis, Black patients also showed a similar trend across socioeconomic (i.e. household income and primary payer) and racial (i.e. White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander) factors.

DISCUSSION

Black patients may be significantly financially burdened because of the prevalence of comorbidities and low-income status. More work is required to ensure healthcare equality and promote access to care for the uninsured, low-income, and minority populations because comorbidities common in these populations can create more significant financial barriers.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS.

METHODS

We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making.

RESULTS

Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

The Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With Comorbidities

Introduction

Individuals with a history of smoking and a high risk of lung cancer often have a high prevalence of smoking-related comorbidities. The presence of these comorbidities might alter the benefit-to-harm ratio of lung cancer screening by influencing the risk of complications, quality of life, and competing risks of death. Nevertheless, individuals with chronic diseases are underrepresented in screening clinical trials. In this study, we use microsimulation modeling to determine the impact of chronic diseases on lung cancer benefits and harms.

Methods

We extended a validated lung cancer screening microsimulation model that comprehensively recapitulates an individual's lung cancer development, progression, detection, follow-up, treatment, and survival. We parameterized the model to reflect the impact of chronic diseases on complications from invasive testing, quality of life, and mortality in individuals in five-year age categories between the ages of 50 and 80 years. Outcomes included life-years (LY) gained per 100,000 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and history of stroke compared with screening-eligible individuals without comorbidities.

Results

Among individuals between the ages of 50 and 54 years, we found that the presence of a comorbidity altered the LY gained from screening per 100,000 individuals depending on the comorbidity: 4296 LY with no comorbidities; 3462 LY, 3260 LY, 3031 LY, and 3257 LY with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and stroke, respectively. We observed greater reductions in LY gained in individuals with two comorbidities; we observed similar patterns for individuals between the ages of 55 and 59 years, 60 and 64 years, 65 and 69 years, 70 and 74 years, and 75 and 80 years.

Conclusions

Comorbidities reduce LY gained from screening per 100,000 compared with no comorbidities, and our results can be used by clinicians when discussing the benefits and harms of screening in their patients with comorbidities.

What Goes into Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening? Factors Associated with Clinician Judgments of Suitability for Screening

Rationale: Achieving the net benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS) depends on optimizing patient selection. Objective: To identify factors associated with clinician assessments that a patient was unlikely to benefit from LCS ("LCS-inappropriate") because of comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients assessed for LCS at 30 Veterans Health Administration facilities from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2021. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with clinicians' designations of LCS inappropriateness (primary outcome), accounting for 3-year predicted probability (i.e., competing risk) of non-lung cancer death. Measurements and Main Results: Among 38,487 LCS-eligible patients, 1,671 (4.3%) were deemed LCS-inappropriate by clinicians, whereas 4,383 (11.4%) had an estimated 3-year competing risk of non-lung cancer death greater than 20%. Patients with higher competing risks of non-lung cancer death were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate (odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-3.05). Older patients (ages 75-80; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78) and those with interstitial lung disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.59) were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate than would be explained by competing risk of non-lung cancer death, whereas patients currently smoking (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) were less likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate, suggesting that clinicians over- or underweighted these factors. The probability of being deemed LCS-inappropriate varied from 0.4% to 74%, depending on the clinician making the assessment (median OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.89-3.25). Conclusion: Concerningly, the likelihood that a patient is deemed LCS-inappropriate is more strongly associated with the clinician making the assessment than with patient characteristics. Patient selection may be optimized by providing decision support to help clinicians assess net LCS benefit.

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.

The association of urbanicity and travel time with lung cancer screening utilization

BACKGROUND

To examine 1) the rate of lung cancer screening (LCS) utilization in a large healthcare system in South Carolina; 2) associations of urbanicity and travel time with LCS utilization.

METHODS

LCS-eligible patients from 2019 were identified. The outcome was LCS utilization. The exposures were zip-code level urbanicity and travel time from the centroid of zip-code area to the nearest screening site (<10,10-<20, ≥20 min). Covariates included age, sex, race, marital status, insurance, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Charlson Comorbidity Index (0, 1, 2, ≥3), and zip-code level median income. Chi-square tests and logistic regressions were employed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 6930 patients, among whom 1432 (20.66%) received LCS. After adjusting for covariates, living in a non-metropolitan area (adjusted odds ratio: 0.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.26-0.40) and having longer travel time (0.80 [0.65-0.98] and 0.68 [0.54-0.86] for 10-<20 and ≥20 min travel time, respectively, compared to <10 min travel time) were significantly associated with lower odds of LCS utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The LCS utilization rate of a healthcare system was about 20% in 2019. Living in non-metropolitan areas or having longer travel time to LCS site were associated with lower LCS utilization.

Social disparities in pain management provision in stage IV lung cancer: A national registry analysis

A strong association exists between pain and lung cancer (LC). Focusing on the disparities in pain referral in LC patients, we are aiming to characterize the prevalence and patterns of referrals to pain management (PM) in Stage IV non-small-cell LC (NSLC) and small-cell LC (SCLC). We sampled the National Cancer Database for de novo stage IV LC (2004-2016). We analyzed trends of pain referral using the Cochran-Armitage test. Chi-squared statistics were used to identify the sociodemographic and clinico-pathologic determinants of referral to PM, and significant variables (P < .05) were included in one multivariable regression model predicting the likelihood of pain referral. A total N = 17,620 (3.1%) of NSLC and N = 4305 (2.9%) SCLC patients were referred to PM. A significant increase in referrals was observed between 2004 and 2016 (NSLC: 1.7%-4.1%, P < .001; SCLC: 1.6%-4.2%, P < .001). Patient and disease factors played a significant role in likelihood of referral in both groups. Demographic factors such as gender, age, and facility type played a role in the likelihood of pain referrals, highlighting the gap and need for multidisciplinary PM in patients with LC. Despite an increase in the proportion of referrals to PM issued for terminal stage LC, the overall proportion remains low. To ensure better of quality of life for patients, oncologists need to be made aware of existent disparities and implicit biases.

The role of lung cancer risk and comorbidity in lung cancer screening use

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, benefits and harms of screening vary among eligible adults. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether LCS is more commonly used among populations most likely to benefit, namely adults with high lung cancer risk and low comorbidity. In this cohort study of patients eligible for LCS, we used data from the electronic health record to evaluate the relationship between lung cancer risk, comorbidity, and receipt of LCS. We also evaluated use of diagnostic chest CT. Analyses used a nonparametric test for trend across quartiles of lung cancer risk and comorbidity. The study sample included 551 LCS-eligible adults who were followed for a mean 2.9 years (SD 1.6 years). A cumulative 190 (34 %) received at least 1 LCS, and 141 (26 %) had a diagnostic chest CT. Receipt of LCS increased across quartiles of lung cancer risk (5 per 100 person years in the lowest quartile vs 13 per 100 person-years in the highest, p < 0.001 for test of trend). LCS receipt decreased across increasing quartiles of comorbidity (14 vs 8 per 100 person-years, p = 0.008). Diagnostic CT was more common in among patient with higher levels of comorbidity (15 vs 5 per 100 person-years, p < 0.001). In conclusion, lung cancer screening was more commonly used in patients with greater lung cancer risk and lower comorbidity. Results suggest that both patient characteristics and use of diagnostic imaging may shape current patterns of LCS use.

Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With and Without Lung-Related Comorbidities

Importance

Comorbidities characterize the underlying health status of individuals. In the context of lung cancer screening (LCS), lung-related comorbidities may influence the observed benefits and harms.

Objective

To compare the characteristics of individuals undergoing LCS, the LCS examination result, the cancer detection rate (CDR), and the false-positive rate (FPR) in those with and without lung-related comorbidities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A prospective cohort study was conducted in 5 academic and community screening sites across North Carolina from January 1, 2014, to November 7, 2020. Participants included 611 individuals screened for lung cancer who completed a 1-page health history questionnaire.

Exposures

Presence of at least 1 self-reported lung-related comorbidity, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, bronchiectasis, pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis, asbestosis, sarcoidosis, and tuberculosis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The LCS examination result was determined from the radiologist's Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment (negative, 1 or 2; positive, 3 or 4). The age-adjusted CDR and FPR were calculated per 100 LCS examinations, using binary logistic regression.

Results

Among the 611 individuals screened for lung cancer (308 men [50.4%]; mean [SD] age, 64 [6.2] years), 335 (54.8%) had at least 1 lung-related comorbidity. Individuals with vs without lung-related comorbidities were more likely to be female than male (180 of 335 [53.7%] vs 123 of 276 [44.6%]; P = .02), White vs non-White race (275 of 326 [84.4%] vs 193 of 272 [71.0%]; P < .001), and have high school or less education vs greater than a high school education (108 of 231 [46.7%] vs 64 of 208 [30.8%]; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the proportion of positive LCS examinations in those with vs without a lung-related comorbidity at baseline (37 [16.0%] vs 22 [11.1%]; P = .14) or subsequent (40 [12.3%] vs 23 [10.6%]; P = .54) LCS examination. Comparing individuals with vs without lung-related comorbidities, there was no statistically significant difference in the CDR (1.6 vs 1.9 per 100; P = .73) or FPR (13.0 vs 9.3 per 100; P = .16). Of the 17 individuals with lung cancer, 13 patients (76.5%) were diagnosed with stage I lung cancer.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that individuals with self-reported lung-related comorbidities undergoing LCS were more likely to be female, of White race, and have less education than those without lung-related comorbidity. Although no statistically significant differences in the proportion of positive examinations, CDR, or FPR by self-reported lung comorbidities were noted, additional studies with larger numbers of individuals undergoing screening are needed to understand LCS outcomes in those with lung-related comorbidities.

Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study to assess the importance of coexisting chronic conditions to clinical practice and policy: protocol for a multicentre observational study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA and worldwide, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to improve lung cancer outcomes. A critical question is whether the ratio of potential benefits to harms found in prior LCS trials applies to an older and potentially sicker population. The Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study will help close this knowledge gap by leveraging real-world data to fully characterise LCS recipients. The principal goal of the PLuS study is to characterise the comorbidity burden of individuals undergoing LCS and quantify the benefits and harms of LCS to enable informed decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PLuS is a multicentre observational study designed to assemble an LCS cohort from the electronic health records of ~40 000 individuals undergoing annual LCS with LDCT from 2016 to 2022. Data will be integrated into a unified repository to (1) examine the burden of multimorbidity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age; (2) quantify potential benefits and harms; and (3) use the observational data with validated simulation models in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to provide LCS outcomes in the real-world US population. We will fit a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted ORs of comorbidity, functional limitations and impaired pulmonary function adjusted for relevant covariates. We will also estimate the cumulative risk of LCS outcomes using discrete-time survival models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine observational data and simulation models to estimate the long-term impact of LCS with LDCT.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board and VA Portland Health Care System. The results will be disseminated through publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Safety considerations include protection of patient confidentiality.

Lung cancer screening use and implications of varying eligibility criteria by race and ethnicity: 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data

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 PLCOm2012_Race3L 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 PLCOm2012_Race3L 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.