Evaluating the impact of varied compliance to lung cancer screening recommendations using a microsimulation model

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol

BACKGROUND

In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence.

METHODS

The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders.

DISCUSSION

Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings.

REGISTRATION

Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study

BACKGROUND

Annual screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for heavy smokers. However, it is questionable whether all individuals require annual screening given the potential harms of LDCT screening. This study examines the benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening in heavy smokers and determines the optimal risk threshold for screening and risk-stratified screening intervals.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis in China, using a cohort-based Markov model which simulated a lung cancer screening cohort of 19,146 heavy smokers aged 50 ~ 74 years old, who had a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and were either current smokers or had quit for < 15 years. A total of 34 risk-based screening strategies, varying by different risk groups for screening eligibility and screening intervals (1-year, 2-year, 3-year, one-off, non-screening), were evaluated and were compared with annual screening for all heavy smokers (the status quo strategy). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective with a 30-year time horizon. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was adopted as three times the gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 2021 (CNY 242,928) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Compared with the status quo strategy, nine risk-based screening strategies were found to be cost-effective, with two of them even resulting in cost-saving. The most cost-effective strategy was the risk-based approach of annual screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of ≥ 1.70%, biennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of 1.03 ~ 1.69%, and triennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of < 1.03%. This strategy had the highest incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of CNY 1032. All risk-based screening strategies were more efficient than the status quo strategy, requiring 129 ~ 656 fewer screenings per lung cancer death avoided, and 0.5 ~ 28 fewer screenings per life-year gained. The cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening was further improved when individual adherence to screening improved and individuals quit smoking after being screened.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-based screening strategies are more efficient in reducing lung cancer deaths and gaining life years compared to the status quo strategy. Risk-stratified screening intervals can potentially balance long-term benefit-harm trade-offs and improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screenings.

Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening in a Centralized Academic Program

BACKGROUND

Adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) protocols is critical for achieving mortality reductions. However, adherence rates, particularly for recommended annual screening among patients with low-risk findings, are often sub-optimal. We evaluated annual LCS adherence for patients with low-risk findings participating in a centralized screening program at a tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of a centralized lung cancer screening program launched in July 2018. We performed electronic medical review of 337 patients who underwent low-dose CT (LDCT) screening before February 1, 2021 (to ensure ≥ 15 months follow up) and had a low-risk Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2. Captured data included patient characteristics (smoking history, Fagerstrom score, environmental exposures, lung cancer risk score), LDCT imaging dates, and Lung-RADS results. The primary outcome measure was adherence to annual screening. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with adherence.

RESULTS

Overall, 337 patients had an initial Lung-RADS result of 1 (n = 189) or 2 (n = 148). Among this cohort, 139 (73.5%) of Lung-RADS 1 and 111 (75.0%) of Lung-RADS 2 patients completed the annual repeat LDCT within 15 months, respectively. The only patient characteristic associated with adherence was having Medicaid coverage; compared to having private insurance, Medicaid patients were less adherent (adjusted OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.15-0.92). No other patient characteristic was associated with adherence.

CONCLUSION

Our centralized screening program achieved a high initial annual adherence rate. Although LCS has first-dollar insurance coverage, other socioeconomic concerns may present barriers to annual screening for Medicaid recipients.

Level of Education Matters in Regard to Participants' Compliance With Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial

PURPOSE

The success of cancer screening depends on patient adherence to the screening program. The purpose of this study is to assess how the level of education might affect participants' compliance with screening in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Secondary data analyses of the participants in the NLST were performed. A total of 50,104 participants were included in this study. Participants who enrolled in the trial but refused the initial screening were compared with those who completed the screening. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to assess the association between participant noncompliance and education level.

RESULTS

A total of 3712 (7.41%) participants refused lung cancer screening in the NLST. Compared with the reference group, participants with an education level of eighth grade or less (odds ratio [OR]: 2.1, CI: 1.68-2.76), ninth-11th grade (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.7-2.34), high school graduates (OR: 1.3, CI: 1.22-1.54), after high school training (OR: 1.1, CI: 1-1.31), or an associate's degree (OR: 1.2, CI: 1.07-1.36) had significantly higher odds of refusing lung cancer screening. Participants with a bachelor's degree showed no significant association with compliance with screening (OR: 0.9, P = 0.86). Multivariate regression analysis also showed that younger, single, male participants with a longer duration of smoking history had significantly higher odds of refusing the screening.

CONCLUSION

A lower level of education was significantly associated with refusing lung cancer screening. A strategic targeted approach for this group might be necessary to promote their compliance rate.

Education messages and strategies to inform the public, potential screening candidates and healthcare providers about lung cancer screening: A systematic review

International lung cancer screening (LCS) trials, using low-dose computed tomography, have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in reducing mortality from lung cancer. This systematic review aims to synthesise the key messages and strategies that could be successful in increasing awareness and knowledge of LCS, and ultimately increase uptake of screening. Studies were identified via relevant database searches up to January 2022. Two authors evaluated eligible studies, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed quality. Results were synthesised narratively. Of 3205 titles identified, 116 full text articles were reviewed and 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies were conducted in the United States. While the study findings were heterogenous, key messages mentioned across multiple studies were about: provision of information on LCS and the recommendations for LCS (n = 8); benefits and harms of LCS (n = 6); cost of LCS and insurance coverage for participants (n = 6) and eligibility criteria (n = 5). To increase knowledge and awareness, evidence from awareness campaigns suggests that presenting information about eligibility and the benefits and harms of screening, may increase screening intention and uptake. Evidence from behavioural studies suggests that campaigns supporting engagement with platforms such as educational videos and digital awareness campaigns might be most effective. Group based learning appears to be most suited to increasing health professionals' knowledge. This systematic review found a lack of consistent evidence to demonstrate which strategies are most effective for increasing participant healthcare professional and community awareness and education about LCS.

A predictive model for lung cancer screening nonadherence in a community setting health-care network

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality. However, its benefit may be limited by nonadherence to screening. Although factors associated with LCS nonadherence have been identified, to the best of our knowledge, no predictive models have been developed to predict LCS nonadherence. The purpose of this study was to develop a predictive model leveraging a machine learning model to predict LCS nonadherence risk.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients who enrolled in our LCS program between 2015 and 2018 was used to develop a model to predict the risk of nonadherence to annual LCS after the baseline examination. Clinical and demographic data were used to fit logistic regression, random forest, and gradient-boosting models that were internally validated on the basis of accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve.

RESULTS

A total of 1875 individuals with baseline LCS were included in the analysis, with 1264 (67.4%) as nonadherent. Nonadherence was defined on the basis of baseline chest computed tomography (CT) findings. Clinical and demographic predictors were used on the basis of availability and statistical significance. The gradient-boosting model had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (0.89, 95% confidence interval = 0.87 to 0.90), with a mean accuracy of 0.82. Referral specialty, insurance type, and baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (LungRADS) score were the best predictors of nonadherence to LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a machine learning model using readily available clinical and demographic data to predict LCS nonadherence with high accuracy and discrimination. After further prospective validation, this model can be used to identify patients for interventions to improve LCS adherence and decrease lung cancer burden.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds.

DESIGN

Comparative modeling analysis.

DATA SOURCES

National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions.

LIMITATION

Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors.

CONCLUSION

Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level.

OBJECTIVE

To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR).

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

United States, 2015 to 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT.

RESULTS

Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care After a Positive Lung Cancer Screening Examination

Importance

Maximizing benefits of lung cancer screening requires timely follow-up after a positive screening test. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommends testing and follow-up timing based on the screening result.

Objective

To determine rates of and factors associated with recommended follow-up after a positive lung cancer screening examination by Lung-RADS category.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study of lung cancer screening examinations performed from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2020, with follow-up through July 31, 2021, was conducted at 5 academic and community lung cancer screening sites in North Carolina. Participants included 685 adults with a positive screening examination, Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Statistical analysis was performed from December 2020 to March 2022.

Exposures

Individual age, race, sex, smoking exposure, year of lung cancer screening examination, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, referring clinician specialty, rural or urban residence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adherence, defined as receipt of recommended follow-up test or procedure after the positive screen per ACR Lung-RADS timeframes: 6 months for Lung-RADS 3 and 3 months for Lung-RADS 4A. For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, adherence was defined as follow-up care within 4 weeks, as ACR Lung-RADS does not specify a timeframe.

Results

Among the 685 individuals included in this study who underwent lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, 416 (60.7%) were aged at least 65 years, 123 (18.0%) were Black, 562 (82.0%) were White, and 352 (51.4%) were male. Overall adherence to recommended follow-up was 42.6% (292 of 685) and varied by Lung-RADS category: Lung-RADS 3 = 30.0% (109 of 363), Lung-RADS 4A = 49.5% (96 of 194), Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 68.0% (87 of 128). Extending the follow-up time increased adherence: Lung-RADS 3 = 68.6% (249 of 363) within 9 months, Lung-RADS 4A = 77.3% (150 of 194) within 5 months, and Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 80.5% (103 of 128) within 62 days. For Lung-RADS 3, recommended follow-up was less likely among those currently smoking vs those who quit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78). In Lung-RADS 4A, recommended follow-up was less likely in Black individuals vs White individuals (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, recommended follow-up was more likely in female individuals vs male individuals (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.09-7.28) and less likely in those currently smoking vs those who quit (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, adherence to recommended follow-up after a positive screening examination was low but improved among nodules with a higher suspicion of cancer and after extending the follow-up timeline. However, the association of extending the follow-up time of screen-detected nodules with outcomes at the population level, outside of a clinical trial, is unknown. These findings suggest that studies to understand why recommended follow-up is lower in Black individuals, male individuals, and individuals currently smoking are needed to develop strategies to improve adherence.

Uptake of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in China: A multi-centre population-based study

BACKGROUND

Optimal uptake rates of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans are essential for lung cancer screening (LCS) to confer mortality benefits. We aimed to outline the process model of the LCS programme in China, identify the high-risk individuals with low uptake based on a prospective multi-centre population-based cohort, and further explore associated structural characteristics.

METHODS

A total of 221,955 individuals at high-risk for lung cancer from the National Lung Cancer Screening cohort were included. The logistic regression model was performed to identify the individual characteristics associated with the uptake of LCS, defined as whether the high-risk individual undertook LDCT scans in designated hospitals within six months following the initial risk assessment. The linear regression model was adopted to explore the structural characteristics associated with the uptake rates in 186 communities.

FINDINGS

The overall uptake rate was 33·0%. The uptake rate was negatively correlated with the incidence of advanced-stage lung cancer (Pearson's coefficient -0·88, p-value 0·0007). Multivariable regression models found that lower uptake rates were associated with males (OR 0·88, 95%CI 0·85-0·91), current smokers (OR 0·93, 95%CI 0·90-0·96), individuals with depressive symptoms (OR 0·92, 95%CI 0·90-0·94), and the structural characteristics, including longer structural delays in initiating LDCT scans (30-90 days vs. ≤14 days: β -7·17, 95%CI -12·76∼ -1·57; >90 days vs. ≤14 days: β -13·69, 95%CI -24·61∼ -2·76), no media-assisted publicity (β -6·43, 95%CI -11·26∼ -1·60), and no navigation assistance (β -5·48, 95%CI -10·52∼ -0·44).

INTERPRETATION

Multifaceted interventions are recommended, which focus on poor-uptake individuals and integrate the 'assessment-to-timely-screening' approach to minimise structural delays, media publicity, and a navigation assistance along the centralised screening pathway.

FUNDING

Ministry of Finance and National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China.

An Evaluation of Annual Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in a Large National Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality in large RCTs where adherence is high. Unfortunately, recently published adherence rates do not replicate those seen in trials. Previous publications support a centralized approach to ensure patient eligibility and improve adherence.

METHODS

Investigators reviewed a large, geographically diverse cohort of patients from 14 health systems, with 73 centers across the U.S. Lung cancer screening patients were screened from 2015 to 2019 and tracked utilizing a commercial system. Data were analyzed in 2019-2021. Demographics, eligibility, imaging results, and cancer diagnosis were collected. Overall return was calculated for 2 years (Time 0-Time 1 and Time 1-Time 2) on the basis of follow-up through March 31, 2020. Only U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-eligible patients with a normal or benign result (Lung-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2) at baseline (Time 0) were included in annual adherence calculations.

RESULTS

A total of 30,166 patients were screened; 50% were male, with a mean age of 65 years. Most individuals currently smoked (58.3%), with an average of 48.3 pack years. A total of 58% were White, 6% were Black, and 34% had race information unavailable. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria were not met by 10.6%. Of the 26,958 patients eligible at baseline, 76% were Lung-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2. Annual adherence at Year 1 (Time 0-Time 1) was 48.4%. Adherence at Year 2 (Time 1-Time 2) was 44.4%. A total of 93 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force‒eligible patients were diagnosed with lung cancers, mostly during the first annual follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort screened and managed primarily using a commercial tracking platform, most patients were U.S. Preventive Services Task Force eligible. However, annual adherence was poor despite this resource, suggesting that additional interventions are needed to recognize the full mortality benefit from screening programs.

Effect of Refined Perioperative Nursing on the Efficacy of Noninvasive Ventilation in Elderly Patients with Lung Cancer and Respiratory Failure

NIV (noninvasive ventilation) is becoming more popular as a first-line treatment for older patients with lung cancer who are experiencing acute respiratory failure. In the ICU, older age is linked to worse results with mechanical breathing. When dealing with severely sick patients, noninvasive ventilation is beneficial. Due to the risk of NIV failure and the higher mortality induced by delayed intubation, it is difficult to apply to older patients, especially those with lung cancer and respiratory insufficiency. As a result, for a successful outcome, nurse interventions should be provided to patients during noninvasive ventilation. This paper proposes the application of integrated perioperative nursing models on the elderly patients with lung cancer and respiratory failure. We have applied three nursing models: peer support nursing model, multidisciplinary cooperative nursing model, and transcultural nursing theory. The effect of the proposed nursing model on the efficacy of NIV is evaluated using the Logical Decision Tree Regression (LDTR) model. It is optimized using Iterative Fruit Fly Optimization Algorithm (IFOA). The performance of the suggested system is analysed, and it is observed that the patients showed better surgical outcomes when provided with the integrated nursing models.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review options for more rapid diagnosis of lung cancer at an earlier stage, thereby improving survival. These options include screening, allowing general practitioners to refer patients directly to low-dose computed tomography scan instead of a chest X-ray and the abolition of the "visitation filter", i.e. hospital doctors' ability to reject referrals from general practitioners without prior discussion with the referring doctor.

Evaluation of Alternative Diagnostic Follow-up Intervals for Lung Reporting and Data System Criteria on the Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

The ACR developed the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to standardize the diagnostic follow-up of suspicious screening findings. A retrospective analysis showed that Lung-RADS would have reduced the false-positive rate in the National Lung Screening Trial, but the optimal timing of follow-up examinations has not been established. In this study, we assess the effectiveness of alternative diagnostic follow-up intervals on lung cancer screening.

METHODS

We used the Lung Cancer Outcome Simulator to estimate population-level outcomes of alternative diagnostic follow-up intervals for Lung-RADS categories 3 and 4A. The Lung Cancer Outcome Simulator is a microsimulation model developed within the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Consortium to evaluate outcomes of national screening guidelines. Here, among the evaluated outcomes are percentage of mortality reduction, screens performed, lung cancer deaths averted, screen-detected cases, and average number of screens and follow-ups per death averted.

RESULTS

The recommended 3-month follow-up interval for Lung-RADS category 4A is optimal. However, for Lung-RADS category 3, a 5-month, instead of the recommended 6-month, follow-up interval yielded a higher mortality reduction (0.08% for men versus 0.05% for women), and a higher number of deaths averted (36 versus 27), a higher number of screen-detected cases (13 versus 7), and a lower number of combined low-dose CTs and diagnostic follow-ups per death avoided (8 versus 5), per one million general population. Sensitivity analysis of nodule progression threshold verifies a higher mortality reduction with a 1-month earlier follow-up for Lung-RADS 3.

CONCLUSIONS

One-month earlier diagnostic follow-ups for individuals with Lung-RADS category 3 nodules may result in a higher mortality reduction and warrants further investigation.

Factors Associated With Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Among Patients With Negative Baseline CT Results in a Community Health Care Setting

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality; however, that reduction depends upon screening adherence. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with adherence rate for LCS among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network LCS program between January 2015 and January 2020. The two outcomes were adherence for the first and second subsequent LCS studies. Negative baseline result was defined as a Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System score 0, 1, or 2. Adherence was defined as undergoing a follow-up study within 11 to 15 months of a prior scan. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of adherence, adjusting for patient demographics, median household income (on the basis of geocoding ZIP codes from the US Census Bureau), smoking history, screening sites, and provider specialty.

RESULTS

A total of 30.7% (512 of 1,668) and 16.3% (270 of 1,660) of patients were adherent for the first two annual subsequent screens, respectively. First-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site and provider specialty. Second-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site, provider specialty, and pack-years smoked.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to LCS in a multihospital integrated health care network was poor and even lower at year 2. The identified factors associated with adherence may serve as targets to increase LCS adherence and decrease lung cancer mortality.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and a Diagnostic Biomarker

Background

The Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) reduces the false-positive rate of lung cancer screening but introduces prolonged periods of uncertainty for indeterminate findings. We assess the cost-effectiveness of a screening program that assesses indeterminate findings earlier via a hypothetical diagnostic biomarker introduced in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines.

Methods

We evaluated the performance of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on lung cancer screening with and without a hypothetical noninvasive diagnostic biomarker using a validated microsimulation model. The diagnostic biomarker assesses the malignancy of indeterminate nodules, replacing Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, and is characterized by a varying sensitivity profile that depends on nodules' size, specificity, and cost. We tested the robustness of our findings through univariate sensitivity analyses.

Results

A lung cancer screening program per the USPSTF guidelines that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker with at least medium sensitivity profile and 90% specificity, that costs $250 or less, is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio lower than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year, and improves lung cancer-specific mortality reduction while requiring fewer screening exams than the USPSTF guidelines with Lung-RADS. A screening program with a biomarker costing $750 or more is not cost-effective. The health benefits accrued and costs associated with the screening program are sensitive to the disutility of indeterminate findings and specificity of the biomarker, respectively.

Conclusions

Lung cancer screening that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker, in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program and warrants further investigation.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Guideline-Recommended Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Is Superior With a Centralized Approach

BACKGROUND

To recognize fully the benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS), annual adherence must approach the high levels seen in the National Lung Screening Trial. Emerging data suggest that annual adherence is poor and that a centralized approach to screening improves adherence.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Do differences in adherence exist between a centralized and decentralized approach to LCS within a hybrid program and what are predictors of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective evaluation of a single-center hybrid LCS program was conducted to compare outcomes including patient eligibility and adherence between the centralized and decentralized approaches.

METHODS

Patient demographics and outcomes were compared between those screened with a centralized and decentralized approach and between adherent and nonadherent patients using two-sample t tests, χ ² tests, or analyses of variance, as appropriate. Annual adherence analysis was conducted using data from patients who remained eligible for screening with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between adherence and the primary exposure, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1,117 patients underwent baseline low-dose CT imaging. Two hundred eleven patients (19%) were ineligible by United States Preventative Services Task Force criteria and most (90%) were screened with the decentralized approach. After exclusions, 765 patients with Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 remained eligible for annual screening. Overall adherence was 56%; however, adherence in the centralized program was 70%, compared with 41% with the decentralized approach (P < .001). Individuals screened in a decentralized approach were 73% less likely to be adherent (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.37). A greater proportion of patients with three or more comorbidities were screened outside the centralized program.

INTERPRETATION

Those screened using a centralized approach were more likely to meet eligibility criteria for LCS and more likely to return for annual screening than those screened using a decentralized approach.

A risk-based framework for assessing real-time lung cancer screening eligibility that incorporates life expectancy and past screening findings

BACKGROUND

Current lung cancer risk-based screening approaches use a single risk-threshold, disregard life-expectancy, and ignore past screening findings. We address these limitations with a comprehensive analytical framework, the individualized lung cancer screening decision (ENGAGE) tool that aims to optimize lung cancer screening for US ever-smokers under dynamic risk assessment by incorporating life expectancy and past screening findings over time.

METHODS

ENGAGE employs a partially observable Markov decision process framework that integrates published risk prediction and disease progression models, to dynamically assess the trade-off between the expected health benefits and harms associated with screening. ENGAGE evaluates lung cancer risk annually and provides real-time screening eligibility that maximizes the expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of ever-smokers. We compare ENGAGE against the 2013 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guideline and single-threshold risk-based screening paradigms.

RESULTS

Compared with the 2013 USPSTF guidelines, ENGAGE expands screening coverage among ever-smokers (ENGAGE: 78%, USPSTF: 61%), while reducing the number of screening examinations per person (ENGAGE:10.43, USPSTF:12.07, P < .001), yields higher effectiveness in terms of increased lung cancer-specific mortality reduction (ENGAGE: 19%, USPSTF: 15%, P < .001) and improves screening efficiency (ENGAGE: 696, USPSTF: 819 screens per death avoided, P < .001). When compared against a single-threshold risk-based screening strategy, ENGAGE increases QALY requiring 30% fewer screens per death avoided (ENGAGE: 696, single-threshold: 889, P < .001), and reduces false positives by 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

ENGAGE provides a comprehensive framework for dynamic risk-based assessment of lung cancer screening eligibility by incorporating life expectancy and past screening findings that can serve to guide future policies on the effectiveness and efficiency of screening.

LAY SUMMARY

A novel decision-analytical screening framework was developed for lung cancer, the individualized lung cancer screening decision (ENGAGE) tool to provide personalized screening schedules for ever-smokers. ENGAGE captures the dynamic nature of lung cancer risk and incorporates life expectancy into the screening decision-making process. ENGAGE integrates past screening findings and changes in smoking behavior of individuals and provides informed screening decisions that outperform existing screening guidelines and single-threshold risk-based screening approaches. A personalized lung cancer screening program facilitated by a tool such as ENGAGE could enhance the efficiency of lung cancer screening.

Determinants Associated With Longitudinal Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Analysis of Claims Data

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) efficacy is highly dependent on adherence to annual screening, but little is known about real-world adherence determinants. We used insurance claims data to examine associations between LCS annual adherence and demographic, comorbidity, health care usage, and geographic factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Insurance claims data for all individuals with an LCS low-dose CT scan were obtained from the Colorado All Payer Claims Dataset. Adherence was defined as a second claim for a screening CT 10 to 18 months after the index claim. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to define the relationship between annual adherence and age, gender, insurance type, residence location, outpatient health care usage, and comorbidity burden.

RESULTS

After exclusions, the final data set consisted of 9,056 records with 3,072 adherent, 3,570 nonadherent, and 2,414 censored (unclassifiable) individuals. Less adherence was associated with ages 55 to 59 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67-0.94), 60 to 64 (HR = 0.83, 99% CI = 0.71-0.97), and 75 to 79 (HR = 0.79, 99% CI = 0.65-0.97); rural residence (HR = 0.56, 99% CI = 0.43-0.73); Medicare fee-for-service (HR = 0.45, 99% CI = 0.39-0.51), and Medicaid (HR = 0.50, 99% CI = 0.40-0.62). A significant interaction between outpatient health care usage and comorbidity was also observed. Increased outpatient usage was associated with increased adherence and was most pronounced for individuals without comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based description of LCS adherence determinants provides insight into populations that might benefit from specific interventions targeted toward improving adherence and maximizing LCS benefit. Quantifying population-based adherence rates and understanding factors associated with annual adherence are critical to improving screening adherence and reducing lung cancer death.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Adherence to Follow-up Testing Recommendations in US Veterans Screened for Lung Cancer, 2015-2019

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality with close follow-up and adherence to management recommendations. Little is known about factors associated with adherence to LCS in real-world practice, with data limited to case series from selected LCS programs.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze adherence to follow-up based on standardized follow-up recommendations in a national cohort and to identify factors associated with delayed or absent follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the US. Veterans were screened for lung cancer between 2015 to 2019 with sufficient follow-up time to receive recommended evaluation. Patient- and facility-level logistic regression analyses were performed. Data were analyzed from November 26, 2019, to December 16, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Receipt of the recommended next step after initial LCS according to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) category, as captured in VHA or Medicare claims.

RESULTS

Of 28 294 veterans (26 835 [94.8%] men; 21 969 individuals [77.6%] were White; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [5.5] years) who had an initial LCS examination, 17 863 veterans (63.1%) underwent recommended follow-up within the expected timeframe, whereas 3696 veterans (13.1%) underwent late evaluation, and 4439 veterans (15.7%) had no apparent evaluation. Facility-level differences were associated with 9.2% of the observed variation in rates of late or absent evaluation. In multivariable-adjusted models, Black veterans (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.10-1.29]), veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.23]), veterans with substance use disorders (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.22]), veterans with lower income (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]), and those living at a greater distance from a VHA facility (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.10]) were more likely to experience delayed or no follow-up; veterans with higher risk findings (Lung-RADS category 4 vs Lung-RADS category 1: OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.43]) and those screened in high LCS volume facilities (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.67]) or academic facilities (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.92]) were less likely to experience delayed or no follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, varying how stringently adherence was defined, expected evaluation ranged from 14 486 veterans (49.7%) under stringent definitions to 20 578 veterans (78.8%) under liberal definitions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study that captured follow-up care from the integrated VHA health care system and Medicare, less than two-thirds of patients received timely recommended follow-up after initial LCS, with higher risk of delayed or absent follow-up among marginalized populations, such as Black individuals, individuals with mental health disorders, and individuals with low income, that have long experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes. Future work should focus on identifying facilities that promote high adherence and disseminating successful strategies to promote equity in LCS among marginalized populations.

Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population

BACKGROUND

Current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guidelines are based on smoking history and age (55-80 years). These guidelines may miss those at higher risk, even at lower exposures of smoking or younger ages, because of other risk factors such as race, family history, or comorbidity. In this study, we characterized the demographic and clinical profiles of those selected by risk-based screening criteria but were missed by USPSTF guidelines in younger (50-54 years) and older (71-80 years) age groups.

METHODS

We used data from the National Health Interview Survey, the CISNET Smoking History Generator, and results of logistic prediction models to simulate lifetime lung cancer risk-factor data for 100 000 individuals in the 1950-1960 birth cohorts. We calculated age-specific 6-year lung cancer risk for each individual from ages 50 to 90 years using the PLCOm2012 model and evaluated age-specific screening eligibility by USPSTF guidelines and by risk-based criteria (varying thresholds between 1.3% and 2.5%).

RESULTS

In the 1950 birth cohort, 5.4% would have been ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria in their younger ages but eligible based on risk-based criteria. Similarly, 10.4% of the cohort would be ineligible for screening by USPSTF in older ages. Notably, high proportions of blacks were ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria at younger (15.6%) and older (14.2%) ages, which were statistically significantly greater than those of whites (4.8% and 10.8%, respectively; P < .001). Similar results were observed with other risk thresholds and for the 1960 cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Further consideration is needed to incorporate comprehensive risk factors, including race and ethnicity, into lung cancer screening to reduce potential racial disparities.

Patterns and Factors Associated With Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in Diverse Practice Settings

IMPORTANCE

For lung cancer screening to confer mortality benefit, adherence to annual screening with low-dose computed tomography scans is essential. Although the National Lung Screening Trial had an adherence rate of 95%, current data are limited on screening adherence across diverse practice settings in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patterns and factors associated with adherence to annual screening for lung cancer after negative results of a baseline examination, particularly in centralized vs decentralized screening programs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This observational cohort study was conducted at 5 academic and community-based sites in North Carolina and California among 2283 individuals screened for lung cancer between July 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, who met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria, had negative results of a baseline screening examination (American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 1 or 2), and were eligible to return for a screening examination in 12 months.

EXPOSURES

To identify factors associated with adherence, the association of adherence with selected baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of screening program, was estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Screening program type was classified as centralized if individuals were referred through a lung cancer screening clinic or program and as decentralized if individuals had a direct clinician referral for the baseline low-dose computed tomography scan.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Adherence to annual lung cancer screening, defined as a second low-dose computed tomography scan within 11 to 15 months after baseline screening.

RESULTS

Among the 2283 eligible individuals (1294 men [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [5.8] years; 1160 [50.8%] aged ≥65 years) who had negative screening results at baseline, overall adherence was 40.2% (n = 917), with higher adherence among those who underwent screening through centralized (46.0% [478 of 1039]) vs decentralized (35.3% [439 of 1244]) programs. The independent factor most strongly associated with adherence was type of screening program, with a 2.8-fold increased likelihood of adherence associated with centralized screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.78; 95% CI, 1.99-3.88). Another associated factor was age (65-69 vs 55-59 years: aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77; 70-74 vs 55-59 years: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.10-1.96).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

After negative results of a baseline examination, adherence to annual lung cancer screening was suboptimal, although adherence was higher among individuals who were screened through a centralized program. These results support the value of centralized screening programs and the need to further implement strategies that improve adherence to annual screening for lung cancer.

A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Risk-prediction models have been proposed to select individuals for lung cancer screening. However, their long-term effects are uncertain. This study evaluates long-term benefits and harms of risk-based screening compared with current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.

METHODS

Four independent natural history models were used to perform a comparative modeling study evaluating long-term benefits and harms of selecting individuals for lung cancer screening through risk-prediction models. In total, 363 risk-based screening strategies varying by screening starting and stopping age, risk-prediction model used for eligibility (Bach, PLCOm2012, or Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]), and risk threshold were evaluated for a 1950 US birth cohort. Among the evaluated outcomes were percentage of individuals ever screened, screens required, lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, and overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

Risk-based screening strategies requiring similar screens among individuals ages 55-80 years as the USPSTF criteria (corresponding risk thresholds: Bach = 2.8%; PLCOm2012 = 1.7%; LCDRAT = 1.7%) averted considerably more lung cancer deaths (Bach = 693; PLCOm2012 = 698; LCDRAT = 696; USPSTF = 613). However, life-years gained were only modestly higher (Bach = 8660; PLCOm2012 = 8862; LCDRAT = 8631; USPSTF = 8590), and risk-based strategies had more overdiagnosed cases (Bach = 149; PLCOm2012 = 147; LCDRAT = 150; USPSTF = 115). Sensitivity analyses suggest excluding individuals with limited life expectancies (<5 years) from screening retains the life-years gained by risk-based screening, while reducing overdiagnosis by more than 65.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-based lung cancer screening strategies prevent considerably more lung cancer deaths than current recommendations do. However, they yield modest additional life-years and increased overdiagnosis because of predominantly selecting older individuals. Efficient implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening requires careful consideration of life expectancy for determining optimal individual stopping ages.

Modeled Reductions in Late-stage Cancer with a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally, with many cases detected at a late stage when prognosis is poor. New technologies enabling multi-cancer early detection (MCED) may make "universal cancer screening" possible. We extend single-cancer models to understand the potential public health effects of adding a MCED test to usual care.

METHODS

We obtained data on stage-specific incidence and survival of all invasive cancers diagnosed in persons aged 50-79 between 2006 and 2015 from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and combined this with published performance of a MCED test in a state transition model (interception model) to predict diagnostic yield, stage shift, and potential mortality reductions. We model long-term (incident) performance, accou.

Screening Adherence in the Veterans Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project

BACKGROUND

Adherence to annual low-dose CT was 95% in the National Lung Screening Trial and must be replicated to achieve mortality benefit from screening.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do we determine adherence rates within the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project and identify factors predictive of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A secondary data analysis of the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project that was conducted at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers was performed to determine adherence to follow up imaging and to determine factors predictive of adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 2,103 patients were screened. The adherence to screening from baseline scan (T0) to first follow-up scan (T1) was 82.2% and 65.2% from T1 to second follow-up scan (T2). Logistic regression modeling showed that presence of a nodule and the site of lung cancer screening were predictive of adherence. After three rounds of screening, 1,343 patients (64%) who underwent baseline screening underwent both subsequent annual low-dose CT scans; 225 patients (11%) had only one subsequent low-dose CT; 0.4% did not have a T1 scan but did have a T2 scan; 70 patients (3%) died, and 36 patients (1.7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. There was significant variation in screening adherence across the eight sites, which ranged from 63% to 94% at T1 and 52% to 82% at T2 (P < .05).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a centralized program design with dedicated navigator and registry to assist with adherence to annual lung cancer screening, variations between sites suggest that active follow-up strategies are needed to optimize adherence. For the mortality benefit from lung cancer screening to be recognized, adherence to annual screening must achieve higher rates.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening in the United States: A Comparative Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Recommendations vary regarding the maximum age at which to stop lung cancer screening: 80 years according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 77 years according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and 74 years according to the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of different stopping ages for lung cancer screening.

DESIGN

By using shared inputs for smoking behavior, costs, and quality of life, 4 independently developed microsimulation models evaluated the health and cost outcomes of annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).

DATA SOURCES

The NLST; Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program; Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study; and U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

Current, former, and never-smokers aged 45 years from the 1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual LDCT according to NLST, CMS, and USPSTF criteria.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

The 4 models showed that the NLST, CMS, and USPSTF screening strategies were cost-effective, with ICERs averaging $49 200, $68 600, and $96 700 per QALY, respectively. Increasing the age at which to stop screening resulted in a greater reduction in mortality but also led to higher costs and overdiagnosis rates.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the NLST and CMS strategies had higher probabilities of being cost-effective (98% and 77%, respectively) than the USPSTF strategy (52%).

LIMITATION

Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence, and models extrapolated beyond clinical trial data.

CONCLUSION

All 3 sets of lung cancer screening criteria represent cost-effective programs. Despite underlying uncertainty, the NLST and CMS screening strategies have high probabilities of being cost-effective.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

CISNET (Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network) Lung Group, National Cancer Institute.

A simulation study of the effect of lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea

More than 50% of the world's lung cancer cases occur in Asia and more than 20% of cancer deaths in Asia are attributable to lung cancer. The U.S. National Lung Screening Trial has shown that lung cancer screening with computed tomography (CT) can reduce lung cancer deaths. Using the Lung Cancer Policy Model-Asia (LCPM-Asia), we estimated the potential mortality reduction achievable through the implementation of CT-based lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. The LCPM-Asia was calibrated to the smoking prevalence of each of the aforementioned countries based on published national surveys and to lung cancer mortality rates from the World Health Organization. The calibrated LCPM-Asia was then used to simulate lung cancer deaths under screening and no-screening scenarios for the four countries. Using screening eligibility criteria recommended by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which are based on age and smoking history, we estimated the lung cancer mortality reduction from screening through year 2040. By 2040, lung cancer screening would result in 91,362 life-years gained and 4.74% mortality reduction in South Korea; 290,325 life-years gained and 4.33% mortality reduction in Japan; 3,014,215 life-years gained and 4.22% mortality reduction in China; and 8,118 life-years gained and 3.76% mortality reduction in Singapore. As for mortality reduction by smoker type, current smokers would have the greatest mortality reduction in each country, ranging from 5.56% in Japan to 6.86% in Singapore. Among the four countries, lung cancer screening under CMS eligibility criteria was most effective in South Korea and least effective in Singapore. Singapore's low smoking prevalence and South Korea's aging population and higher smoking prevalence may partially explain the discrepancy in effectiveness. CT screening was shown to be promising as a means of reducing lung cancer mortality in the four countries.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings

Background

Numerous health policy organizations recommend lung cancer screening, but no consensus exists on the optimal policy. Moreover, the impact of the Lung CT screening reporting and data system guidelines to manage small pulmonary nodules of unknown significance (a.k.a. indeterminate nodules) on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is not well established.

Methods

We assess the cost-effectiveness of 199 screening strategies that vary in terms of age and smoking eligibility criteria, using a microsimulation model. We simulate lung cancer-related events throughout the lifetime of US-representative current and former smokers. We conduct sensitivity analyses to test key model inputs and assumptions.

Results

The cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier consists of both annual and biennial screening strategies. Current guidelines are not on the frontier. Assuming 4% disutility associated with indeterminate findings, biennial screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 40 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy using $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold yielding the highest health benefit. Among all health utilities, the cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to changes in the disutility of indeterminate findings. As the disutility of indeterminate findings decreases, screening eligibility criteria become less stringent and eventually annual screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 30 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy yielding the highest health benefit.

Conclusions

The disutility associated with indeterminate findings impacts the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. Efforts to quantify and better understand the impact of indeterminate findings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening are warranted.

Predicting the Epidemiological Dynamics of Lung Cancer in Japan

While the prevalence of smoking has steadily declined over time, the absolute numbers of lung cancer cases and deaths have continued to increase in Japan. We employed a simple mathematical model that describes the relationship between demographic dynamics and smoking prevalence to predict future epidemiological trends of lung cancer by age and sex. Never-smokers, smokers, and ex-smokers were assumed to experience different hazard of lung cancer, and the model was parameterized using data from 2014 and before, as learning data, and a future forecast was obtained from 2015 onwards. The maximum numbers of lung cancer cases and deaths in men will be 76,978 (95% confidence interval (CI): 76,630⁻77,253) and 63,284 (95% CI: 62,991⁻63507) in 2024, while those in women will be 42,838 (95% CI: 42,601⁻43,095) and 32,267 (95% CI: 32,063⁻32,460) in 2035 and 2036, respectively. Afterwards, the absolute numbers of cases and deaths are predicted to decrease monotonically. Our compartmental modeling approach is well suited to predicting lung cancer in Japan with dynamic ageing and drastic decline in smoking prevalence. The predicted burden is useful for anticipating demands for diagnosis, treatment, and care in the healthcare sector.

Supportive Care in Radiotherapy Based on a Mobile App: Prospective Multicenter Survey

BACKGROUND

Consumer electronics and Web-enabled mobile devices are playing an increasing role in patient care, and their use in the oncologic sector opens up promising possibilities in the fields of supportive cancer care and systematic patient follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to assess the acceptance and possible benefits of a mobile app-based concept for supportive care of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

METHODS

In total, 975 patients presenting for radiotherapy due to breast or prostate cancer were screened; of them, 200 owned a smartphone and consented to participate in the survey. Patients were requested to complete a questionnaire at 2 time points: prior to the initiation (T0) and after the completion (T1) of radiotherapy. The questionnaire included questions about the habits of smartphone usage, technical knowledge and abilities of the participants, readiness to use a mobile app within the context of radiotherapy, possible features of the mobile app, and general attitude toward the different aspects of oncologic treatments. For quantitative analysis, sum scores were calculated for all areas of interest, and results were correlated with patient characteristics. Additionally, answers were quantitatively compared between time points T0 and T1.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 57 (range 27-78) years. Of the 200 participants, 131 (66.2%) reported having the ability to use their smartphones with minimal to no help and 75.8% (150/200) had not used their smartphones in a medical context before. However, 73.3% (146/200) and 83.4% (166/200) of patients showed a strong interest in using a mobile app for supportive care during radiotherapy and as part of the clinical follow-up, respectively. Patients most commonly requested functionalities regarding appointment scheduling in the clinic (176/200, 88.0%) and the collection of patient-reported outcome data regarding their illness, therapy, and general well-being (130/200, 65.0%). Age was identified as the most influential factor regarding patient attitude, with patients aged <55 years being significantly more inclined toward and versed in smartphone use (P<.001). The acceptance of mobile apps was significantly higher in patients exhibiting a Karnofsky performance index <80% (P=.01). Support in the context of therapy-related side effects was judged most important by patients with poor clinical performance (P=.006). The overall acceptance of mobile apps in the context of radiotherapy surveillance was high at a median item sum score of 71.4/100 and was not significantly influenced by tumor stage, age, gender, treatment setting, or previous radiotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The acceptance of mobile apps for the surveillance and follow-up of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy is high; this high acceptance level will serve as a basis for future clinical trials investigating the clinical benefits of mobile app-based treatment support. Introduction of mobile apps into the clinical routine should be considered as an opportunity to improve and intensify supportive treatment for cancer patients.