Lung Cancer Screening Uncertainty among Patients Undergoing LDCT

Exploring the complexity of cystic fibrosis (CF) and psychosocial wellbeing in the 2020s: Current and future challenges

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is traditionally associated with considerable and progressive multisystem pathology, onerous treatment burden, complex psychosocial challenges, and reduced life-expectancy [1-9].This decade has seen transformative change in management for many, but not all, people with CF. The most notable change comes from Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Receptor (CFTR) modulators, which bring significant benefits for people who are eligible for, and able to access, them [10]. However alongside, or perhaps because of, this exciting progress, the past few years have also brought important novel challenges to the psychosocial wellbeing of people with CF. This article, written as a collaboration between CF psychologists, social workers, physicians and nurses aims to provide an accessible overview of the novel psychosocial challenges now faced by children, their families, and adults with CF, and to invite consideration of their changing psychosocial requirements to inform future holistic care. Themes include geopolitical stressors such as the pandemic and its wake, a growing divide between those able or unable to access CFTR modulators, potential rapid changes in life expectancy secondary to these drugs and the inevitable associated challenges this brings; evolving body image, mental health side effects of CFTR modulators, the challenges of adherence in apparently well children and young adults, as well as the diagnostic conundrum and associated anxiety of the cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID) label. It also highlights some unmet research and service delivery needs in the area.

Participant factors associated with psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual-level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for full-text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre-registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre-post (n = 13), cross-sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed-methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio-economic group, not being married or co-habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non-significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation.

CONCLUSION(S)

Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed.

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation.

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Access to Lung Cancer Screening

Rural and racial/ethnic minority communities experience higher risk and mortality from lung cancer. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography reduces mortality. However, disparities persist in the uptake of lung cancer screening, especially in marginalized communities. Barriers to lung cancer screening are multilevel and include patient, provider, and system-level barriers. This discussion highlights the key barriers faced by rural and racial/ethnic minority communities.

Effects of a 360° virtual counselling environment on patient anxiety and CCTA process time: A randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated whether a 360° virtual counselling environment (360°VCE) was more effective at decreasing patients' anxiety than routine standard of care counselling for patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and if there was any difference in the process times for both of these groups.

METHODS

A total of 86 patients underwent CCTA in this randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. The 360°VCE was developed using spherical panoramic images and non-immersive 360° technology. The primary outcome, anxiety, was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The secondary outcome, CCTA process time, was measured from the time of arrival in the department until end of examination.

RESULTS

Pre-scan anxiety was lower among patients in the 360°VCE group immediately before CCTA in comparison to patients in the control group (p = 0.015). Women demonstrated higher levels of anxiety than men in both groups. No between-group differences were discerned in CCTA process time.

CONCLUSION

Access to 360°VCE can reduce patients' pre-CCTA anxiety levels.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The presented results can be used to improve patient counselling and care, reduce anxiety among patients undergoing CCTA, and optimise the CCTA examination procedure.

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.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.

The impact of income and education on lung cancer screening utilization, eligibility, and outcomes: a narrative review of socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the US and worldwide. In particular, vulnerable populations such as those of low socioeconomic status (SES) are at the highest risk for and suffer the highest mortality from NSCLC. Although lung cancer screening (LCS) has been demonstrated to be a powerful tool to lower NSCLC mortality, it is underutilized by eligible smokers, and disparities in screening are likely to contribute to inequities in NSCLC outcomes. It is imperative that we collect and analyze LCS data focused on individuals of low socioeconomic position to identify and address barriers to LCS utilization and help close the gaps in NSCLC mortality along socioeconomic lines. Toward this end, this review aims to examine published studies that have evaluated the impact of income and education on LCS utilization, eligibility, and outcomes. We searched the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and CINAHL Plus databases for all studies published from January 1, 2010, to October 21, 2020, that discussed socioeconomic-based LCS outcomes. The review reveals that income and education have impact on LCS utilization, eligibility, false positive rates and smoking cessation attempts; however, there is a lack of studies evaluating the impact of SES on LCS follow-up, stage at diagnosis, and treatment. We recommend the intentional inclusion of lower SES participants in LCS studies in order to clarify appropriate eligibility criteria, risk-based metrics and outcomes in this high-risk group. We also anticipate that low SES smokers and their providers will require increased support and education regarding smoking cessation and shared decision-making efforts.

Patient Adherence in an Academic Medical Center's Low-dose Computed Tomography Screening Program

OBJECTIVES

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is an important tool for reducing lung cancer mortality. This study describes a single center's experience with LDCT and attempts to identify any barriers to compliance with standard guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a single university-based hospital system from 2015 to 2019. All individuals who met eligibility for lung cancer screening were entered into a database. The definition of adherence with the screening program was determined by the recommended timeline for the follow-up LDCT. Cohorts were split by adherence and demographics were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 203 LDCTs were performed in 121 patients who met eligibility for LDCT and had appropriate surveillance from 2015 to 2019. The average age was 64 years old. The overall adherence rate for prescribed LDCTs was 59.1%. Patients with Lung-RADS score 2 had 2.43 times higher odds of adherence relative to patients with Lung-RADS score 1 (odds ratio [OR]=2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-4.83; P=0.011). African American patients had 42% lower odds of adherence relative to white patients (OR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.32-1.06; P=0.076). Patients with non-District of Columbia zip codes had 57% higher odds of adherence relative to those with District of Columbia zip codes, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR=1.57; 95% CI: 0.87-2.82; P=0.136).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the implementation of a multidisciplinary, academic LDCT screening program, overall adherence rate to prescribed follow-up scans was suboptimal. Socioeconomic disparities and African American race may negatively affect adherence to lung cancer screening LDCT guidelines. Patients with concerning findings on initial LDCT had a higher association of adherence to guidelines.

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

OBJECTIVES

To identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety ('scanxiety') and interventions to reduce it.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL and PubMed up to July 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies recruited people having cancer-related non-invasive scans (including screening) and contained a quantitative assessment of scanxiety.

DATA EXTRACTION

Demographics and scanxiety outcomes were recorded, and data were summarised by descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 26 693 citations, 57 studies were included across a range of scan types (mammogram: 26/57, 46%; positron-emission tomography: 14/57, 25%; CT: 14/57, 25%) and designs (observation: 47/57, 82%; intervention: 10/57, 18%). Eighty-one measurement tools were used to quantify prevalence and/or severity of scanxiety, including purpose-designed Likert scales (17/81, 21%); the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (14/81, 17%) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9/81, 11%). Scanxiety prevalence ranged from 0% to 64% (above prespecified thresholds) or from 13% to 83% ('any' anxiety, if no threshold). Mean severity scores appeared low in almost all measures that quantitatively measured scanxiety (54/62, 87%), regardless of whether anxiety thresholds were prespecified. Moderate to severe scanxiety occurred in 4%-28% of people in studies using descriptive measures. Nine of 20 studies assessing scanxiety prescan and postscan reported significant postscan reduction in scanxiety. Lower education, smoking, higher levels of pain, higher perceived risk of cancer and diagnostic scans (vs screening scans) consistently correlated with higher scanxiety severity but not age, gender, ethnicity or marital status. Interventions included relaxation, distraction, education and psychological support. Six of 10 interventions showed a reduction in scanxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence and severity of scanxiety varied widely likely due to heterogeneous methods of measurement. A uniform approach to evaluating scanxiety will improve understanding of the phenomenon and help guide interventions.

Perceived cancer-related benefits of quitting smoking and associations with quit intentions among recently diagnosed cancer patients

One third of smokers diagnosed with cancer continue smoking, perhaps due to low perceived cancer-related benefits of cessation. To examine perceived cancer-related benefits of quitting among newly diagnosed cancer patients who smoke and associations with quit intentions, baseline measures from patients (N = 303) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial were analyzed using hierarchical regression models and bootstrapping. Higher perceived cancer-related benefits of quitting were associated with having a smoking-related cancer and less education. Perceived cancer-related benefits of quitting and quit intentions were positively correlated, particularly among patients with smoking-related cancers. For smokers with smoking-related cancers, perceived cancer-related benefits of quitting are correlated with quit intentions.