Opinions, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to lung cancer screening among attending and resident primary care physicians

Statewide Survey of Primary Care and Subspecialty Providers on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk-Stratification and Surveillance Practices

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival. Provision of HCC surveillance is low in the US, particularly in primary care settings.

AIMS

To evaluate current hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HCC surveillance practices and physician attitudes regarding HCC risk-stratification among primary care and subspecialty providers.

METHODS

Using the Tailored Design Method, we delivered a 34-item online survey to 7654 North Carolina-licensed internal/family medicine or gastroenterology/hepatology physicians and advanced practice providers in 2022. We included the domains of HCV treatment, cirrhosis diagnosis, HCC surveillance practices, barriers to surveillance, and interest in risk-stratification tools. We performed descriptive analyses to summarize responses. Tabulations were weighted based on sampling weights accounting for non-response and inter-specialty comparisons were made using chi-squared or t test statistics.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 266 responses were included in the final sample (response rate 3.8%). Most respondents (78%) diagnosed cirrhosis using imaging and a minority used non-invasive tests that were blood-based (~ 15%) or transient elastography (31%). Compared to primary care providers, subspecialists were more likely to perform HCC surveillance every 6-months (vs annual) (98% vs 35%, p < 0.0001). Most respondents (80%) believed there were strong data to support HCC surveillance, but primary care providers did not know which liver disease patients needed surveillance. Most providers (> 70%) expressed interest in potential solutions to improve HCC risk-stratification.

CONCLUSIONS

In this statewide survey, there were great knowledge gaps in HCC surveillance among PCPs and most respondents expressed interest in strategies to increase appropriate HCC surveillance.

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.

Critical gaps in knowledge and implementation of recommendations by the US Preventive Services Task Force

Introduction

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued 31 recommendations applicable to non-pregnant adults. We hypothesized variability in knowledge and implementation of these recommendations among US family medicine resident physicians.

Methods

We performed two electronic surveys: a local survey, and then a nationally-representative, multicenter, survey. We evaluated self-reported knowledge and implementation of USPSTF recommendations related to non-pregnant adults.

Results

84 family medicine residents from 40 residency programs across 25 states participated. Knowledge and implementation of recommendations varied widely. Most residents lacked knowledge relating to breast cancer chemoprophylaxis (9.9 % "known in detail" or "mostly know"), BRCA-related genetic counseling (BRCA-GC) referral (30 %), tuberculosis (TB) screening (41 %), and sexually transmitted infection (STI) counseling (45 %). There is virtually no implementation of recommendations for breast cancer chemoprophylaxis (90 % never/rarely implement). Many residents never/rarely implement recommendations for BRCA-GC referral (75 %), TB screening (62 %), and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (61 %). This remained true even for residents in their final year of training. Relative to their male counterparts, female physicians more frequently implemented recommendations for BRCA-GC referral (11 % vs 0 % always/often implement, p = 0.019), cervical cancer screening (100 % vs 83 %, p = 0.019), and folic acid supplementation (60 % vs 29 %, p = 0.007). Knowledge and implementation of recommendations were strongly related (β = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.50-1.00, p < 0.001, Spearman R² = 0.56).

Conclusion

Critical gaps exist in resident knowledge and implementation of USPSTF recommendations. We discuss urgent implications for cancer prevention, public health, and health equity.

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 Policy in Alaska and Occupational Therapy

Lung cancer claims more lives than any other cancer in the world and remains difficult to diagnose in the early stages. This article examines the current state of lung cancer detection and screening via low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in Alaska and considers potential opportunities for occupational therapy practitioners in primary care settings. Medicare requires at least one documented shared decision-making encounter between provider and patient before LDCT lung cancer screening occurs. As a result of time constraints, documentation requirements, and the plethora of preventive health services they provide, primary care physicians often lack the time and training to conduct this essential service. This provides an opportunity for occupational therapy practitioners to perform these services as part of their practice and to play a role in this area as patient educators and prevention specialists in primary care settings. What This Article Adds: This article explores the national health crisis of lung cancer and describes how occupational therapists can participate in providing care in primary care settings.

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.

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically.

RESULTS

We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality.

INTERPRETATION

Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.

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.

Impact of a Hybrid Lung Cancer Screening Model on Patient Outcomes and Provider Behavior

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation is complicated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement requirements of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling. LCS programs can utilize different structures to meet these requirements, but the impact of programmatic structure on provider behavior and screening outcomes is poorly described.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective chart review of 624 patients in a hybrid structure, academic LCS program, we compared characteristics and outcomes of primary care provider (PCP)- and specialist-screened patients. We also assessed the impact of the availability of an LCS specialty clinic and best practice advisory (BPA) on PCP ordering patterns using electronic medical record generated reports.

RESULTS

During the study period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, 48% of patients were specialist-screened and 52% were PCP-screened; there were no clinically relevant differences in patient characteristics or screening outcomes between these populations. PCPs demonstrate distinct practice patterns when offered the choice of specialist-driven or PCP-driven screening. Increased exposure to a LCS BPA is associated with increased PCP screening orders. The addition of a nurse navigator into the LCS program increased documentation of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling to > 95% and virtually eliminated screening of ineligible patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic interventions including a BPA and nurse navigator are associated with increased screening and improved program quality, as evidenced by reduced screening of ineligible patients, increased lung cancer risk of the screened population, and improved compliance with LCS guidelines. Individual PCPs demonstrate clear preferences regarding LCS that should be considered in program design.

A stepped-wedge randomized trial protocol of a community intervention for increasing lung screening through engaging primary care providers (I-STEP)

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, yet few eligible high-risk patients receive it annually. This protocol describes a community-partnered intervention (Toolkit) designed to support primary care practices in making referrals for lung screening and guiding patients into appropriate screening pathways. This study uses a stepped-wedge implementation design. Screening centers are randomized by readiness level to enter the intervention phase in three-month "steps" with pre-intervention data serving as the control. The primary outcome is whether delivery of the Toolkit to primary care practices results in a monthly increase in number of initial LDCT screenings. Six participating centers will identify 10 practices and reach 2-3 providers per practice to train them to use the Toolkit. The Toolkit will address known barriers to screening and referral at the patient and provider levels and provide support for required elements of screening. Toolkit components include adaptable evidence-based interventions to maximize compatibility with workflows. We hypothesize that after nine months of intervention delivery, the number of initial screening per center will double. Involving 60 practices achieves 80% power at 5% level of significance. Implementation outcomes such as adoption, acceptability, feasibility, adaptation, and sustainability will be assessed through field-notes and activity logs. LDCT for lung cancer screening currently reaches a small fraction of eligible adults. To reach the full potential to reduce mortality, primary care practices are an important venue for increasing appropriate referrals. This multidisciplinary trial will encourage acceptability and sustainability by using local knowledge and promoting partnership between providers and patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03958253.

Lung cancer screening: assessment of health literacy and readability of online educational resources

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening can reduce mortality but can be a complex, multi-step process. Poor health literacy is associated with unfavorable outcomes and decreased use of preventative services, so it is important to address barriers to care through efficient and practical education. The readability of lung cancer screening materials for patients is unknown and may not be at the recommended 6th grade reading level set by the American Medical Association. Our goals were to: (1) measure the health literacy of a lung cancer screening population from an urban academic medical center, and (2) examine the readability of online educational materials for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cross sectional study at a single urban academic center. Health literacy was assessed using three validated screening questions. To assess the readability of educational materials, we performed a Google search using the phrase, "What is lung cancer screening?" and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) formula was used to estimate the grade level required to understand the text.

RESULTS

There were 404 patients who underwent lung cancer screening during the study period. The prevalence of inadequate/marginal health literacy was 26.7-38.0%. Fifty websites were reviewed and four were excluded from analysis because they were intended for medical providers. The mean FKGL for the 46 websites combined was 10.6 ± 2.2.

CONCLUSIONS

Low health literacy was common and is likely a barrier to appropriate education for lung cancer screening. The current online educational materials regarding lung cancer screening are written above the recommended reading level set by the American Medical Association.