Patient and Clinician Recommendations to Improve Communication and Understanding of Lung Cancer Screening Results

BACKGROUND

Patient understanding of chest low-dose CT (LDCT) scan results for lung cancer screening (LCS) may impact outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are patient- and clinician-identified gaps in understanding and communication of LCS results and how might communication be improved through a patient-oriented tool?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a mixed-methods study of participants recruited from a multisite LCS program to understand knowledge gaps after receiving LCS results and to guide development of a commonly asked questions (CAQ) after LCS information sheet. Initial patient surveys assessed understanding and reactions to LCS results (n = 190). We then conducted patient interviews and focus group discussions (n = 31) to understand experiences receiving LDCT scan results and reactions to results letters and the proposed CAQ; we also interviewed clinicians (n = 6) for feedback on these resources. We summarized survey responses and used thematic analysis to identify major themes in focus groups and interviews.

RESULTS

Of 190 survey respondents (43% response rate), although 88% agreed that they "understood" their LCS results, only 55% reported understanding what a lung nodule is. Approximately two-thirds thought it was "very important" to receive more information regarding lung nodules and incidental lung and heart disease. In interviews and focus groups, although patients believed that brief results letters for normal LDCT scan results generally were acceptable, most found letters explaining abnormal LDCT scan and incidental findings to be concerning and not a substitute for discussion with their clinician. Nearly all patients expressed that the CAQ sheet provided helpful information on nodules, results reporting and incidental findings, and helped them form questions to ask their clinicians.

INTERPRETATION

We identified patient-reported information needs regarding LCS results and developed a CAQ information sheet that was refined with patient and clinician input. The CAQ may represent a simple and feasible way to improve LCS results reporting and to augment clinician-patient discussions.

Use and Outcomes of Low-Dose CT Scan Lung Cancer Screening in the Medicare Population

BACKGROUND

Relatively little is known about various aspects of low-dose CT (LDCT) scan lung cancer screening in US clinical practice, including characteristics of cases diagnosed after screening. We assessed this using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What were the characteristics of patients with lung cancer, including stage and survival, whose disease was diagnosed after LDCT scan screenings?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We created an LDCT scan use cohort consisting of everyone in the 5% SEER-Medicare sample with ≥ 12 months of non-health maintenance organization (HMO) Part A and B coverage while 65 to 77 years of age from 2015 through 2019. LDCT scan use and lung cancer diagnosis rates were assessed in this cohort. Additionally, we created a lung cancer cohort consisting of patients who received a diagnosis between 2015 and 2017 at 65 to 78 years of age with complete (non-HMO Part A and B) coverage the year before diagnosis. The cases cohort comprised those screened or unscreened based on undergoing screening during that period; lung cancer characteristics and survival were compared between these groups.

RESULTS

In the LDCT scan use cohort (n = 414,358), use rates increased from 0.10 (per 100 person-years) in 2015 to 1.3 in 2019. Among those with first screenings, 39.2% underwent a subsequent screen within 18 months. The 1-year cumulative lung cancer diagnosis rate after initial screenings was 2.4%. Claims for prescreen counseling were infrequent (about 10%). Of 48,891 patients in the lung cancer cohort, 1,150 (2.4%) underwent screening. Among screened patients, 52.3%, 11.0%, 20.7%, and 16.0% received diagnoses of stages I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively. Lung cancer-specific survival through 3 years was significantly greater in screened versus unscreened patients overall and for all stages except stage II; 3-year lung cancer-specific survival was 89.0% in screened patients with stage I disease.

INTERPRETATION

LDCT scan use was low but increased over time. The lung cancer yield was substantial; cases among those who underwent screening primarily were in the early stage with high survival rates. Although screening rates were unacceptably low, screening outcomes in those Medicare recipients undergoing screening were favorable.

Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction vs. Iterative Reconstruction for Quality of Low-Dose Head-and-Neck CT Angiography with Different Tube-Voltage Protocols in Emergency-Department Patients

Objective: To compare the image quality of computed tomography angiography of the supra-aortic arteries (CTSA) at different tube voltages in low doses settings with deep learning-based image reconstruction (DLR) vs. hybrid iterative reconstruction (H-IR). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 102 patients who underwent CTSA systematically reconstructed with both DLR and H-IR. We assessed the image quality both quantitatively and qualitatively at 11 arterial segmental levels and 3 regional levels. Radiation-dose parameters were recorded and the effective dose was calculated. Eighty-six patients were eligible for analysis Of these patients, 27 were imaged with 120 kVp, 30 with 100 kVp, and 29 with 80 kVp. Results: The effective dose in 120 kVp, 100 kVp and 80 kVp was 1.5 ± 0.4 mSv, 1.1 ± 0.3 mSv and 0.68 ± 0.1 mSv, respectively (p < 0.01). Comparing 80 kVp + DLR vs. 120 and 100 kVp + H-IR CT scans, the mean overall arterial attenuation was about 64% and 34% higher (625.9 ± 118.5 HU vs. 382.3 ± 98.6 HU and 468 ± 118.5 HU; p < 0.01) without a significant difference in terms of image noise (17.7 ± 4.9 HU vs. 17.5 ± 5.2; p = 0.7 and 18.1 ± 5.4; p = 0.3) and signal-to-ratio increased by 59% and 33%, respectively (37.9 ± 12.3 vs. 23.8 ± 9.7 and 28.4 ± 12.5). This protocol also provided superior image quality in terms of qualitative parameters, compared to standard-kVp protocols with H-IR. Highest subjective image-quality grades for vascular segments close to the aorta were obtained with the 100 kVp + DLR protocol. Conclusions: DLR significantly reduced image noise and improved the overall image quality of CTSA with both low and standard tube voltages and at all vascular segments. CT that was acquired with 80 kVp and reconstructed with DLR yielded better overall image quality compared to higher kVp values with H-IR, while reducing the radiation dose by half, but it has limitations for arteries that are close to the aortic arch.

Lung cancer screening in patients with Libby amphibole disease: High yield despite predominantly environmental and household exposure

Background

Lung cancer screening with low‐dose computed tomography (CT) scanning (LDCT) is accepted as a screening tool, but its application to populations exposed to recognized occupational or environmental carcinogens is limited. We apply LDCT to a population with a predominantly nonoccupational exposure to a recognized human lung carcinogen, Libby amphibole asbestos (LA).

Methods

Patients in an asbestos disease clinic in Libby, Montana who were aged 50 to 84 years, greater than or equal to 20 pack‐year history of tobacco use (irrespective of quit date), and asbestos‐related pleuropulmonary disease on high‐resolution CT scan were offered free annual lung cancer screening over a 39‐month period.

Results

Of 2897 clinic patients, 1149 (39.7%) met eligibility criteria, and 567 (49%) were screened with 1014 low‐dose CT scans. Most screened patients had principally environmental (333 or 59%) or household exposure (145 or 25%) to LA. Seventeen primary lung cancers were identified, mostly in early stages: 10 at stage 1, two at stage 2, three at stages 3 to 4, and two at limited small‐cell cancers. The screening yield was 1.9 at baseline scan and 1.5% on the first annual scan.

Conclusions

Consistent with the guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Association of Thoracic Surgery, LDCT for early lung cancer detection should be offered to people with significant exposure to occupational or environmental human lung carcinogens.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Small Cell Lung Cancer Detected by CT Screening

BACKGROUND

Previous studies with a limited number of patients have reported divergent findings on whether screening can detect small cell lung cancer (SCLC) at an earlier stage and whether there might be a survival benefit.

METHODS

This study examined the characteristics of SCLC detected by using low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in the National Lung Screening Trial, a randomized study of individuals at high risk for developing lung cancer comparing LDCT imaging vs chest radiography. SCLC was denoted as screen detected if diagnosed ≤ 1 year of a positive screen or after a longer period but with no time gap between diagnostic procedures of > 1 year; interval detected if diagnosed ≤ 1 year of a negative screen; and nonscreen detected if the subject did not receive any screens or otherwise as postscreening.

RESULTS

A total of 143 cases of SCLC were diagnosed, including 49 (34.2%) screen detected, 15 (10.5%) interval detected, and 79 (55.2%) nonscreened/postscreening. Of the screening phase-diagnosed cases (ie, screen or interval detected), a higher proportion of SCLC cases compared with NSCLC cases were interval detected (23% vs 5%; P < .0001). A higher proportion of all SCLC cases compared with NSCLC cases were advanced stage (III/IV: 86% vs 36%; P < .0001). The unfavorable SCLC stage distribution extended across screen-detected (80% stage III/IV), interval-detected (86%), and nonscreened/postscreening (90%) cancers. Among screen-detected SCLC, only 63.3% had ≥ 1 noncalcified nodule in the cancer lobe compared with 85.4% of NSCLC cases (P < .0001). Even with very small LDCT screen-detected nodules, a high proportion of SCLC cases were late stage. There was no significant difference in survival between screen- and interval-detected or postscreening SCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

"Early detection" with the use of LDCT imaging had no impact on SCLC outcomes. A successful screening modality should ideally detect SCLC earlier than when it can be detected on LDCT scans.