The 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation on Lung Cancer Screening: The More Things Stay the Same…

Comparison of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Use between Commercial, Medicare, and Medicare Advantage Enrollees

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer screening does not require patient cost-sharing for insured people in the U.S. Little is known about whether other factors associated with patient selection into different insurance plans affect screening rates. We examined screening rates for enrollees in commercial, Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS), and Medicare Advantage plans.

METHODS

County-level smoking rates from the 2017 County Health Rankings were used to estimate the number of enrollees eligible for lung cancer screening in two large retrospective claims databases covering: a 5% national sample of Medicare FFS enrollees; and 100% sample of enrollees associated with large commercial and Medicare Advantage carriers. Screening rates were estimated using observed claims, stratified by payer, before aggregation into national estimates by payer and demographics. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in screening rates between payers.

RESULTS

There were 1,077,142 enrollees estimated to be eligible for screening. The overall estimated screening rate for enrollees by payer was 1.75% for commercial plans, 3.37% for Medicare FFS, and 4.56% for Medicare Advantage plans. Screening rates were estimated to be lowest among females (1.55%-4.02%), those aged 75-77 years (0.63%-2.87%), those residing in rural areas (1.88%-3.56%), and those in the West (1.16%-3.65%). Among Medicare FFS enrollees, screening rates by race/ethnicity were non-Hispanic White (3.71%), non-Hispanic Black (2.17%) and Other (1.68%).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable variation exists in lung cancer screening between different payers and across patient characteristics. Efforts targeting historically vulnerable populations could present opportunities to increase screening.

Airflow limitation and mortality during cancer screening in the National Lung Screening Trial: why quantifying airflow limitation matters

Importance

Current eligibility criteria for lung cancer (LC) screening are derived from randomised controlled trials and primarily based on age and smoking history. However, the individual benefits of screening are highly variable and potentially attenuated by co-morbidities such as advanced airflow limitation (AL).

Objective

To examine the relationship between the presence and severity of AL and screening outcomes.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of 18 463 high-risk smokers, a substudy from the National Lung Screening Trial, who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline and median follow-up of 6.1 years. We used descriptive statistics and a competing risk proportional hazards model to examine differences in screening outcomes by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severity group.

Results

The risk of developing LC increased with worsening AL (effect size=0.34, p<0.0001), as did the risk of dying of LC (effect size=0.35, p<0.0001). While those with severe AL (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease, GOLD grade 3–4) had the highest risk of LC and the highest LC mortality, they also had fewer adenocarcinomas (effect size=−0.20, p=0.008) and a lower surgery rate (effect size=−0.16, p=0.014) despite comparable staging, and greater non-LC mortality relative to LC mortality (effect size=0.30, p<0.0001). In participants with no AL, screening with CT was associated with a significant reduction in LC deaths relative to chest X-ray (30.3%, 95% CI 4.5% to 49.2%, p<0.05). The clinically relevant but attenuated reduction in those with AL (18.5%, 95% CI −8.4% to 38.7%, p>0.05) could be attributed to GOLD 3–4, where no appreciable mortality reduction was observed.

Conclusion

Despite a greater risk of LC, severe AL was not associated with any apparent reduction in LC mortality following screening.

Low Rates of Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Among a Safety-net Emergency Department Population

Introduction

A suspected diagnosis of cancer through an emergency department (ED) visit is associated with poor clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the rate at which ED patients attend cancer screenings for lung, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancers based on national guidelines set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study. Patients were randomly approached in the Eskenazi Hospital ED between August 2019–February 2020 and were surveyed to determine whether they would be eligible and had attended lung, CRC, and breast cancer screenings, as well as their awareness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Patients who were English-speaking and ≥18 years old, and who were not critically ill or intoxicated or being seen for acute decompensated psychiatric illness were offered enrollment. Enrolled subjects were surveyed to determine eligibility for lung, colorectal, and breast cancer screenings based on guidelines set by the USPSTF. No cancer screenings were actually done during the ED visit.

Results

A total of 500 patients were enrolled in this study. More participants were female (54.4%), and a majority were Black (53.0%). Most participants had both insurance (80.2%) and access to primary care (62.8%). Among the entire cohort, 63.0% identified as smokers, and 62.2% (140/225) of the 50- to 80-year-old participants qualified for lung cancer screening. No patients were screened for lung cancer in this cohort (0/225). Only 0.6% (3/500) were aware that LDCT was the preferred method for screening. Based on pack years, 35.5% (32/90) of the patients who were 40–49 years old and 6.7% (6/90) of those 30–39 years old would eventually qualify for screening. Regarding CRC screening, 43.6% (218/500) of the entire cohort was eligible. However, of those patients only 54% (118/218) had been screened. Comparatively, 77.7% (87/112) of the eligible females had been screened for breast cancer, but only 54.5% (61/112) had been screened in the prior two years.

Conclusion

Many ED patients are not screened for lung/colorectal/breast cancers even though many are eligible and have reported access to primary care. This study demonstrates an opportunity and a need to address cancer screening in the ED.

Implementation of a lung cancer screening initiative in HIV-infected subjects

In this pilot program of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for the screening of lung cancer (LC) in a targeted population of people with HIV (PWH), its prevalence was 3.6%; the number needed to screen in order to detect one case of lung cancer was 28, clearly outweighing the risks associated with lung cancer screening. While data from additional cohorts with longitudinal measurements are needed, PWH are a target population for lung cancer screening with LDCT.

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

RATIONALE

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now recommended for those meeting standard risk factor-based eligibility criteria, the role of comorbidity in the uptake of LCS with LDCT in an older real-world U.S. population is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationships between comorbidity, functional status and LCS utilization in the United States.

METHODS

Using population-based data from the 2017-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we examined the association of comorbid conditions and functional limitations regarding activities of daily living with LCS utilization among participants that met the LCS criteria based on the US Preventive Service Taskforce guidelines. We employed multivariable weighted logistic regression models to evaluate these associations, both overall and within subgroups defined by age (<65 vs. ≥65 years), gender, and smoking history.

RESULTS

Of 11,214 participants that met the eligibility criteria for LCS, 1731 (16%) underwent LCS with LDCT. The majority were white (90%), male (55%), former smokers (52%) and living with at least one chronic comorbid condition (77%). Over 28% had 3 or more comorbid conditions and approximately 40% of participants reported having some form of functional limitations. In the multivariable models, the likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT within the past year was positively associated with higher levels of comorbidity (≥5 vs. 0: aOR=2.34, 95% CI=1.22,4.48) but not with functional limitations (≥3 vs. 0: aOR=1.00, 95% CI=0.66, 1.50).

CONCLUSION

The presence of comorbid conditions is associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT. Because poor health status may diminish the benefits of screening, future research is needed to precisely characterize the health status of LCS-eligible individuals.