Challenges Implementing Lung Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers

Lung cancer statistics, 2023

Despite decades of declining mortality rates, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. This article examines lung cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, survival, and mortality using population-based data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Over the past 5 years, declines in lung cancer mortality became considerably greater than declines in incidence among men (5.0% vs. 2.6% annually) and women (4.3% vs. 1.1% annually), reflecting absolute gains in 2-year relative survival of 1.4% annually. Improved outcomes likely reflect advances in treatment, increased access to care through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and earlier stage diagnosis; for example, compared with a 4.6% annual decrease for distant-stage disease incidence during 2013-2019, the rate for localized-stage disease rose by 3.6% annually. Localized disease incidence increased more steeply in states with the highest lung cancer screening prevalence (by 3%-5% annually) than in those with the lowest (by 1%-2% annually). Despite progress, disparities remain. For example, Native Americans have the highest incidence and the slowest decline (less than 1% annually among men and stagnant rates among women) of any group. In addition, mortality rates in Mississippi and Kentucky are two to three times higher than in most western states, largely because of elevated historic smoking prevalence that remains. Racial and geographic inequalities highlight longstanding opportunities for more concerted tobacco-control efforts targeted at high-risk populations, including improved access to smoking-cessation treatments and lung cancer screening, as well as state-of-the-art treatment.

Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

PURPOSE

Pack-year smoking history is an imperfect and biased measure of cumulative tobacco exposure. The use of pack-year smoking history to determine lung cancer screening eligibility in the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline may unintentionally exclude many high-risk individuals, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups. It is unclear whether using a smoking duration cutoff instead of a smoking pack-year cutoff would improve the selection of individuals for screening.

METHODS

We analyzed 49,703 individuals with a smoking history from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and 22,126 individuals with a smoking history from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) to assess eligibility for screening under the USPSTF guideline versus a proposed guideline that replaces the ≥20-pack-year criterion with a ≥20-year smoking duration criterion.

RESULTS

Under the USPSTF guideline, only 57.6% of Black patients with lung cancer in the SCCS would have qualified for screening, whereas a significantly higher percentage of White patients with lung cancer (74.0%) would have qualified (P < .001). Under the proposed guideline, the percentage of Black and White patients with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening increased to 85.3% and 82.0%, respectively, eradicating the disparity in screening eligibility between the groups. In the BWHS, using a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff increased the percentage of Black women with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening from 42.5% to 63.8%.

CONCLUSION

Use of a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff greatly increases the proportion of patients with lung cancer who would qualify for screening and eliminates the racial disparity in screening eligibility between Black versus White individuals; smoking duration has the added benefit of being easier to calculate and being a more precise assessment of smoking exposure compared with pack-year smoking history.

Examination of provider knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with lung cancer screening among Black men receiving care at a federally qualified health center

The study's goal was to look at providers' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding lung cancer screening among Black male smokers served by a federally qualified healthcare center. Participants in the study were interviewed in depth. Participants completed a short (5-10 minute) survey that assessed demographics, training, and attitudes toward lung cancer screening. For quantitative data, descriptive statistics were used, and for qualitative data, deductive thematic analysis was used. This study included ten healthcare professionals, the majority of whom identified as Black (80%) and were trained as advanced practice providers (60%). The majority of providers (90%) have heard of LDCT lung cancer screening; however, participants reported only being "somewhat" familiar with the LDCT eligibility criteria (70%). Despite generally positive attitudes toward LDCT, patient referral rates for screening were low. Barriers included a lack of provider knowledge about screening eligibility, a lack of use of shared decision-making tools, and patient concerns about screening risks. The reasons for the low referral rates varied, but they included a preference to refer patients for smoking cessation rather than screening, low screening completion and follow-up rates among referred patients, and a lower likelihood that Black smokers will meet pack-year requirements for screening. Additionally, providers discussed patient-level factors such as a lack of information, mistrust, and transportation. The study findings add to the body of knowledge about lung cancer knowledge and screening practices among providers in FQHC settings. This data can be used to create health promotion interventions aimed at smoking cessation and lung cancer screening in Black males and other high-risk smokers.

Persistent racial disparities in refusal of resection in non-small cell lung cancer patients at high-volume and Black-serving institutions

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the standard of care for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Black patients have higher surgical refusal rates than White patients. We evaluated factors associated with the refusal of resection and subsequent non-small cell lung cancer outcomes.

METHODS

We identified patients with non-small cell lung cancer stages IA to IIIA eligible for surgical resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) listed between 2004 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database. We stratified hospitals by the proportion of Black patients served and lung cancer resection volume. We used multivariable regression models to identify factors associated with refusal of resection and assessed 5-year mortality using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard modeling.

RESULTS

Of 221,396 patients identified, 7,753 (3.5%) refused surgery. Black race was associated with increased refusal (adjusted odds ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.90-2.22). Compared to White race, Black race was associated with increased refusal across the highest (adjusted odds ratio 2.29, 95% confidence interval 1.94-2.54), intermediate (adjusted odds ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.37), and lowest (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.58-1.99) volume tertiles. Similarly, Black race was associated with increased refusal across the highest (adjusted odds ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.17), intermediate (adjusted odds ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.80-2.40), and lowest (adjusted odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.13-2.06) Black-serving tertiles. However, surgical resection yielded similar 5-year survival for Black and White patients.

CONCLUSION

Racial disparities in non-small cell lung cancer surgery refusal persist regardless of hospital volume or proportion of Black patients served. These findings suggest that a better understanding of patient and patient-provider level interventions could facilitate a better understanding of treatment decision-making.

Why is the screening rate in lung cancer still low? A seven-country analysis of the factors affecting adoption

Strong evidence of lung cancer screening's effectiveness in mortality reduction, as demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the US and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON), has prompted countries to implement formal lung cancer screening programs. However, adoption rates remain largely low. This study aims to understand how lung cancer screening programs are currently performing. It also identifies the barriers and enablers contributing to adoption of lung cancer screening across 10 case study countries: Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Poland, South Korea and the United States. Adoption rates vary significantly across studied countries. We find five main factors impacting adoption: (1) political prioritization of lung cancer (2) financial incentives/cost sharing and hidden ancillary costs (3) infrastructure to support provision of screening services (4) awareness around lung cancer screening and risk factors and (5) cultural views and stigma around lung cancer. Although these factors have application across the countries, the weighting of each factor on driving or hindering adoption varies by country. The five areas set out by this research should be factored into policy making and implementation to maximize effectiveness and outreach of lung cancer screening programs.

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.

Changing recommendations for lung cancer screening: National Lung Cancer Roundtable member perspectives

Although the revised (2021) US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for lung cancer screening offer the opportunity to save more lives and reduce disparities, National Lung Cancer Roundtable members share a cautionary message about the challenges ahead. To facilitate high‐quality care for diverse populations, a patient‐centered approach is needed that incorporates high‐quality shared decision‐making, improved access to care and navigation, and more streamlined systems of care.

Pulmonary Nodules, Lung Cancer Screening, and Lung Cancer in the Medicare Population

BACKGROUND

Early detection of lung cancer through management of pulmonary nodules (PNs) may reduce lung cancer mortality. We assessed the relationship between PNs and lung cancer.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How common are PNs in the Medicare population? What is the rate of lung cancer after detection of PNs? What is the relative proportion of early-stage lung cancer diagnosed after reporting of PNs vs through low-dose CT (LDCT) scan screening?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Program-Medicare database, we defined two cohorts: those in the 5% sample with ≥ 12 months of Medicare Parts A and B coverage from 2014 through 2019 (5% sample cohort) and those with a diagnosis of lung cancer from 2015 through 2017 with coverage for the prior 18-month period (lung cancer cohort). We defined PNs as chest CT scans with accompanying codes of 793.11 (International Classification of Diseases [ICD], Ninth Revision) or R91.1 (ICD, Tenth Revision) denoting a solitary PN. Patients in the lung cancer cohort were classified by whether they had undergone LDCT scan screening and whether they had a diagnosis of PN or neither (reference) within 18 months before diagnosis. We compared cancer stage and survival across groups.

RESULTS

Of 627,547 patients in the 5% sample cohort, 5.0% demonstrated PNs over median of 5.0 years of follow-up. Cumulative 1- and 2-year lung cancer rates after initial PN diagnosis were 3.2% and 4.7%, respectively. Of 44,194 patients in the lung cancer cohort, 15.7%, 2.9%, and 81.4% were in the PN, LDCT scan, and reference groups, respectively. Of patients in the PN, LDCT scan, and reference groups, 58.1%, 50.3%, and 24.4% respectively, had disease of a localized stage. Among all patients with localized disease, 30.0% and 4.9% were in the PN and LDCT scan and groups, respectively. Three-year lung cancer-specific survival rates were 75.0%, 75.6%, and 49.4% for the PN, LDCT scan, and reference groups.

INTERPRETATION

Patients with lung cancer who received a diagnosis after identification of PNs tended to have localized disease. Of all patients with localized disease, almost one-third had PNs that were diagnosed previously, compared with 5% of patients who had undergone LDCT scan screening. PNs represent a relatively common presentation of potentially curable lung cancer.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening.

METHODS

We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center

Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients weigh risks and benefits of screening approaches. Little is known about SDM visits between patients and healthcare providers in the context of lung cancer screening. This study explored the extent that patients were informed by their provider of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening and expressed certainty about their screening choice. We conducted a survey with 75 patients from an academic medical center in the Southeastern U.S. Survey items included knowledge of benefits and harms of screening, patients' value elicitation during SDM visits, and decisional certainty. Patient and provider characteristics were collected through electronic medical records or self-report. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Pearson correlations between screening knowledge, value elicitation, and decisional conflict were calculated. The sample was predominately non-Hispanic White (73.3%) with no more than high school education (53.4%) and referred by their primary care provider for screening (78.7%). Patients reported that providers almost always discussed benefits of screening (81.3%), but infrequently discussed potential harms (44.0%). On average, patients had low knowledge about screening (score = 3.71 out of 8) and benefits/harms. Decisional conflict was low (score = - 3.12) and weakly related to knowledge (R= - 0.25) or value elicitation (R= - 0.27). Black patients experienced higher decisional conflict than White patients (score = - 2.21 vs - 3.44). Despite knowledge scores being generally low, study patients experienced low decisional conflict regarding their decision to undergo lung cancer screening. Additional work is needed to optimize the quality and consistency of information presented to patients considering screening.

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Referral Practices in Texas Organizations Serving People with Substance Use Disorders

For people at elevated risk for lung cancer, lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality. People with non-nicotine substance use disorders (SUDs) have elevated rates of smoking compared with the general population, highlighting them as a priority population for LCS consideration. Although research has shown LCS is underutilized, there is little literature to inform whether organizations that serve individuals with SUDs have existing clinical protocols surrounding LCS. In the current study, we examine the LCS eligibility and referral practices among these organizations. We conducted a statewide needs assessment survey in 2021 to discern how tobacco use was being addressed at Texas organizations that provide treatment or services to individuals with SUDs. Respondents were asked to report on their center’s LCS eligibility and referral practices. The analytic sample consists of 125 respondents who represented 23 federally qualified health centers, 29 global local mental health authorities (LMHAs), 12 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 61 standalone substance use treatment centers. Very few respondents indicated that healthcare providers at their center made referrals to LCS for patients (8.8%); a few respondents indicated that their healthcare providers assessed patients’ eligibility for LCS but did not make referrals (3.2%). Intervention and implementation efforts are needed in these and other SUD healthcare settings to bolster organizational capacity and ensure that patients are being navigated to lung cancer screening at multiple touch points across the care continuum.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) to study adaptations in lung cancer screening delivery in the Veterans Health Administration: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening is a complex clinical process that includes identification of eligible individuals, shared decision-making, tobacco cessation, and management of screening results. Adaptations to the delivery process for lung cancer screening in situ are understudied and underreported, with the potential loss of important considerations for improved implementation. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) allows for a systematic enumeration of adaptations to implementation of evidence-based practices. We applied FRAME to study adaptations in lung cancer screening delivery processes implemented by lung cancer screening programs in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Enterprise-Wide Initiative.

METHODS

We prospectively conducted semi-structured interviews at baseline and 1-year intervals with lung cancer screening program navigators at 10 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) between 2019 and 2021. Using this data, we developed baseline (1st) process maps for each program. In subsequent years (year 1 and year 2), each program navigator reviewed the process maps. Adaptations in screening processes were identified, documented, and mapped to FRAME categories.

RESULTS

We conducted a total of 16 interviews across 10 VHA lung cancer screening programs (n=6 in year 1, n=10 in year 2) to collect adaptations. In year 1 (2020), six programs were operational and eligible. Of these, three reported adaptations to their screening process that were planned or in response to COVID-19. In year 2 (2021), all 10 programs were operational and eligible. Programs reported 14 adaptations in year 2. These adaptations were planned and unplanned and often triggered by increased workload; 57% of year 2 adaptations were related to the identification and eligibility of Veterans and 43% were related to follow-up with Veterans for screening results. Throughout the 2 years, adaptations related to data management and patient tracking occurred in 60% of programs to improve the data collection and tracking of Veterans in the screening process.

CONCLUSIONS

Using FRAME, we found that adaptations occurred primarily in the areas of patient identification and communication of results due to increased workload. These findings highlight navigator time and resource considerations for sustainability and scalability of existing and future lung cancer screening programs as well as potential areas for future intervention.

Provider and patient perspectives to improve lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography 5 years after Medicare coverage: a qualitative study

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for both men and women in the U.S., yet uptake of preventive cancer screening for people with a heavy smoking history remains low. This qualitative interview study of patients and providers from a large ambulatory healthcare system in northern and central California reevaluated perceptions of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LCS-LDCT) 5 years after Medicare coverage. We hypothesized that initial attitudes and barriers within the LCS-LDCT discussion and process have likely persisted with little change since Medicare coverage and we sought to understand how these attitudes continue to impact effective implementation and uptake of screening with the goal of identifying opportunities for improvement. Between 2019 and 2020, interviews were conducted with 10 primary care physicians and 30 patients using semi-structured interview guides. Providers and patients expressed that they were both aware and supportive of LCS-LDCT, a change from earlier studies, but continued to report little to no shared decision making nor use of a decision aid despite being Medicare requirements. Creation and incorporation of a single-page, graphic heavy decision aid may help address many of the persistent barriers around implementation for both providers and patients. Given recently expanded guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for LCS-LDCT screening and their coverage by Medicare, it is important for healthcare systems to understand provider and patient perceptions to further improve the implementation of LCS-LDCT to ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

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.

Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial

Background

Even after a physician recommendation, many people remain unscreened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and tethered online portals may afford new opportunities to embed patient-facing interventions within clinic workflows and engage patients following a physician recommendation for care. We evaluated the effectiveness of a patient-facing intervention designed to complement physician office-based recommendations for CRC screening.

Design

Using a 2-arm pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the intervention’s effect on CRC screening use as documented in the EHR (primary outcome) and the extent to which the intervention reached the target population. Trial participants were insured, aged 50 to 75 y, with a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Typical EHR functionalities, including patient registries, health maintenance flags, best practice alerts, and secure messaging, were used to support research-related activities and deliver the intervention to enrolled patients.

Results

A total of 1,825 adults consented to trial participation, of whom 78% completed a baseline survey and were exposed to the intervention. Most trial participants (>80%) indicated an intent to be screened on the baseline survey, and 65% were screened at follow-up, with no significant differences by study arm. One-third of eligible patients were sent a secure message. Among those, more than three-quarters accessed study material.

Conclusions

By leveraging common EHR functionalities, we integrated a patient-facing intervention within clinic workflows. Despite practice integration, the intervention did not improve screening use, likely in part due to portal-based interventions not reaching those for whom the intervention may be most effective.

Implications

Embedding patient-facing interventions within the EHR enabled practice integration but may minimize program effectiveness by missing important segments of the patient population.

Highlights

A Multilevel Approach to Investigate Relationships Between Health Care Resources and Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening for lung cancer is evidence-based but an underutilized measure to reduce the burden of lung cancer mortality. Lack of adequate data on geographic availability of lung cancer screening inhibits the ability of health care providers to help patients with decision-making and impedes equity-focused implementation of screening-supportive services.

OBJECTIVES

This analysis used data from 2012-2016 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and County Health Ranking to examine: (a) which cancer resources and county-level factors are associated with late-stage lung cancer at diagnosis; and (b) associations between county rurality and lung cancer incidence/mortality rates.

METHODS

Using New York state SEER data, we identified 68,990 lung cancer patients aged 20 to 112; 48.3% had late-stage lung cancers, and the average lung cancer incidence and mortality rates were 70.7 and 46.2 per 100,000, respectively. There were 144 American College of Radiology designated lung cancer screening centers and 376 Federally Qualified Health Centers identified in New York state. County rurality was associated with a higher proportion of late-stage lung cancers and higher lung cancer mortality rates.

DISCUSSION

Visual geomapping showed the scarcity of rural counties' health care resources. County rurality is a significant factor in differences in lung cancer screening resources and patient outcomes. Use of publicly available data with geospatial methods provides ways to identify areas for improvement, populations at risk, and additional infrastructure needs.

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge and Perceived Barriers Among US Physicians

Introduction

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and has historically been detected late in its course. Low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality by 20% and is currently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, compared with other cancer screening modalities, LDCT utilization remains low. This study surveyed office-based primary care physicians across the United States to better understand LDCT utilization.

Methods

A total of 1500 family and internal medicine physicians selected from the American Medical Association’s physician master file were surveyed between April and July 2019 regarding LDCT practices, eligibility, clinical scenarios, and perceived barriers.

Results

The American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate 3 was 59% (652 respondents); 599 completed supplemental questions regarding lung cancer screening. A total of 88% of respondents discussed LDCT in the previous year, and 78% had ordered at least one LDCT. Most (59%) knew the tobacco exposure criteria for LDCT and correctly identified appropriate clinical scenarios (49%–86% responded correctly). Less than half of respondents correctly identified the age eligibility criteria (44%–45% responded correctly). In general, male physicians, those who graduated after 1990, and family medicine physicians were more likely to report accurate knowledge regarding LDCT eligibility. The top perceived barriers to LDCT were cost to the patient (48% identified as a major barrier), insurance not covering screening (46% major), and patients being unaware of lung cancer screening (40% major).

Conclusion

Knowledge and practices about lung cancer screening are improving, though remain suboptimal. The most common barriers remain cost or insurance-based and suggest the need for a systems-based response to increase awareness and reduce the underutilization of LDCT.

Using a participatory method to test a strategy supporting the implementation of a state policy on screening children for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in a Federally Qualified Health Center system: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events occurring before age 18, such as maltreatment or exposure to violence. ACE screening is increasingly recommended to prevent and address physical and mental health conditions associated with ACEs. To promote ACE screening uptake, the state of California issued the "ACEs Aware" policy that provides Medicaid reimbursement for ACE screening annually for child primary care visits. However, policy directives alone often do not translate into effective screening efforts and greater access to care. Few rigorous studies have developed and tested implementation strategies for ACE pediatric screening policies. This study will fill this gap by testing a multifaceted implementation strategy in partnership with a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) system serving low-income families in Southern California to support the ACE Aware policy.

METHODS

We will use Implementation Mapping, with study process and consideration of determinants and mechanisms guided by the EPIS framework, to co-create and refine an implementation strategy. The proposed strategy is comprised of online training videos, a customized algorithm and use of technology to improve workflow efficiency, implementation training to internal FQHC personnel, clinic support and coaching, and written implementation protocols. A hybrid type 2, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design with five primary care clinics will test whether a multifaceted implementation strategy improves (a) fidelity to the ACE screening protocol, (b) reach defined as the proportion of eligible children screened for ACEs, and (c) the impact of the ACE policy on child-level mental health referrals and symptom outcomes. The study will use mixed methods with data to include electronic health records, surveys, and interviews with clinic personnel and caregivers.

DISCUSSION

This study is designed to increase the capacity of FQHCs' inner context to successfully implement an outer context-initiated ACE policy designed to benefit pediatric patients. It capitalizes on a rare opportunity to use a co-creation approach to develop, adapt, refine, and pilot test an implementation strategy to maximize the impact of a new state-wide policy intended to improve ACE assessment and subsequent care to improve child health, particularly those from underserved communities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial # NCT04916587  registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 4, 2021.

A Lung Cancer Screening Education Program Impacts both Referral Rates and Provider and Medical Assistant Knowledge at Two Federally Qualified Health Centers

BACKGROUND

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve minority and low-socioeconomic populations and provide care to high-risk smokers. These centers frequently experience barriers, including low provider and medical assistant (MA) knowledge around lung cancer screening (LCS). Subsequent low LCS referral rates by providers at FQHCs limit utilization of LCS in eligible, high-risk, underserved patients.

METHODS

Providers and MAs from two FQHCs participated in a LCS educational session. A pre-educational survey was administered at the start of the session and a post-educational survey at the end. The intervention included a presentation with education around non-small cell lung cancer, LCS, tobacco cessation, and shared-decision making. Both surveys were used to evaluate changes in provider and MA ability to determine eligible patients for LCS. The Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction was used to measure the impact.

RESULTS

A total of 29 providers and 28 MAs enrolled in the study from two FQHCs. There was an improvement, P < .009 and P < .015 respectively, in provider and MA confidence in identifying patients for LCS. Additionally, one year prior to the program, 9 low-dose computed tomography (LDCTs) were ordered at one of the FQHCs and 0 at the other. After the program, over 100 LDCTs were ordered at each FQHC.

CONCLUSIONS

A targeted LCS educational program improves provider and MAs' ability to identify eligible LCS patients and is associated with an increase in the number of patients referred to LDCT at FQHCs.

Implementing lung cancer screening in primary care: needs assessment and implementation strategy design

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) could help avert thousands of deaths each year. Since the implementation of screening is complex and underspecified, there is a need for systematic and theory-based strategies. Explore the implementation of lung cancer screening in primary care, in the context of integrating a decision aid into the electronic health record. Design implementation strategies that target hypothesized mechanisms of change and context-specific barriers. The study had two phases. The Qualitative Analysis phase included semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians to elicit key task behaviors (e.g., ordering a low-dose CT) and understand the underlying behavioral determinants (e.g., social influence). The Implementation Strategy Design phase consisted of defining implementation strategies and hypothesizing causal pathways to improve screening with a decision aid. Three key task behaviors and four behavioral determinants emerged from 14 interviews. Implementation strategies were designed to target multiple levels of influence. Strategies included increasing provider self-efficacy toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, improving provider performance expectancy toward ordering a low-dose CT, increasing social influence toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, and addressing key facilitators to using the decision aid. This study contributes knowledge about theoretical determinants of key task behaviors associated with lung cancer screening. We designed implementation strategies according to causal pathways that can be replicated and tested at other institutions. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and to determine the contexts in which they can be effectively applied.

State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.

METHODS

The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.

RESULTS

Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.

Lung Cancer Screening Policy in Alaska and Occupational Therapy

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

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms.

RESULTS

This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Smoking cessation and shared decision-making practices about lung cancer screening among primary care providers

Objective

We describe primary care providers’ current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS).

Methods

Family, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns.

Results

Of 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow‐ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision‐making about LCS, although only about one‐third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04).

Conclusions

Within the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow‐up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision‐making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.

Implementation of a Lung Cancer Screening Program in Two Federally Qualified Health Centers

Using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for lung cancer is associated with improved outcomes among eligible current and former smokers (ie, aged 55-77, at least 30-pack-year smoking history, current smoker or former smoker who quit within the past 15 years). However, the overall uptake of LDCT is low, especially in health care settings with limited personnel and financial resources. To increase access to lung cancer screening services, the American Cancer Society partnered with 2 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Tennessee and West Virginia to conduct a pilot project focused on developing and refining the LDCT screening referral processes and practices. Each FQHC was required to partner with an American College of Radiology-designated lung cancer screening center in its area to ensure high-quality patient care. The pilot project was conducted in 2 phases: 6 months of capacity building (January-June 2016) followed by 2 years of implementation (July 2016-June 2018). One site created a sustainable LDCT referral program, and the other site encountered numerous barriers and failed to overcome them. This case study highlights implementation barriers and factors associated with success and improved outcomes in LDCT screening.

Perceptions of and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Among Physicians in Puerto Rico: A Qualitative Study

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), an accepted U.S. screening tool for early lung cancer detection, is not widely-used in Puerto Rico. We investigated knowledge and attitudes about LDCT in focus groups of primary care physicians (PCP) and individuals at high risk for lung cancer (HRI) in Puerto Rico. Transcribed/translated audio-recorded discussions were analyzed with the constant comparison method. Both groups had limited knowledge about LDCT and concerns regarding insurance coverage. Most HRIs had never had a provider recommend LDCT and believed that having symptoms was necessary to obtain LDCT screening. Perceived barriers included fears about results and the procedure; a perceived benefit was having early detection and possibly being cured. Few PCPs had ever recommended LDCT to a patient, with those who had basing their decision on symptoms/smoking history but having challenges with insurance. More education on LDCT is needed among HRIs, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines should be widely distributed to encourage physician recommendations.

Lung cancer screening eligibility and use with low-dose computed tomography: Results from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials, lung cancer screening with low-dose chest computed tomography (LCS) has been reported to reduce lung cancer mortality. Although initial studies suggested that only approximately 5% of eligible patients have undergone LCS, recent studies have indicated that use of LCS may be increasing nationwide. The objective of the current study was to estimate recent LCS use using cross-sectional survey data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey.

METHODS

The BRFSS is a nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of adults in the United States (response rate of approximately 50%). The 2018 BRFSS survey included questions regarding LCS eligibility and use in 8 states. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants (aged 55-79 years with a smoking history of >30 pack-years) who reported undergoing LCS. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the association between LCS use and sociodemographic characteristics, adjusted for potential confounders and accounting for complex survey design elements.

RESULTS

A total of 26,910 participants were included, 9.9% of whom were eligible for LCS (95% CI, 8.8%-10.6%). Of the eligible patients, 19.2% reported undergoing LCS (95% CI, 14.0%-24.4%). Approximately 16.4% of current smokers were eligible for LCS (95% CI, 14.2%-18.6%). In our multiple variable analyses of eligible patients, age, sex, marital status, current smoking status, and race were not found to be associated with statistically significant differences in reported LCS (P > .05). Retired patients, patients with personal physicians, and patients who did not complete a high school education were more likely to report receiving LCS (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with previously published studies, the results of the current study suggested that LCS use is increasing. However, LCS use remains low (19%) among eligible participants.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Barriers to Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening among Middle-Aged Chinese

PURPOSE

The current study aims to explore the barriers for middle-aged Chinese to learn about and uptake low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Data were collected via an online survey in December 2019. Final valid sample included 640 respondents, aged 40-60 years old, from 21 provinces of China. We performed multiple linear regressions to test the potential barriers to LDCT scan.

FINDINGS

Cost concerns, distrust in doctors, fears of disease, lack of knowledge, and optimistic bias are negatively associated with the intention to learn about and uptake LDCT scan.

IMPLICATIONS

Our study contributes to understanding the negative predictors of middle-aged Chinese to get LDCT lung cancer scans. Future campaign programs should help audiences to build comprehensive understandings about lung cancer and LDCT scan. To better promote LDCT scan in China, the government should fund more trial programs continuously and public efforts should be made to rebuild the patient-doctor trust.

National Lung Cancer Screening Utilization Trends in the Veterans Health Administration

Background

Many Veterans are high risk for lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is an effective strategy for lung cancer early detection in a high-risk population. Our objective was to describe and compare annual and geographic utilization trends for LDCT screening in the Veteran's Health Administration (VHA).

Methods

A national retrospective cohort of screened Veterans from January 1, 2011 to May 31, 2018 was used to calculate annual and regional rates of initial LDCT utilization per 1000 eligible Veterans. We identified Veterans with a first LDCT exam using common procedure terminology codes G0297 or 71250 and described as "lung cancer screening," "screening," or "LCS." The number of screen-eligible Veterans per year was calculated as unique Veterans aged 55 to 80 years seen at a Veterans Affairs medical center (VAMC) in that year, multiplied by 32% (estimated proportion with eligible smoking history). We present 95% confidence intervals (CI) for rates.

Results

Screened Veterans had a mean age of 66.1 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.6); 95.5% male; 77.4% Caucasian. There were 119 300 LDCT exams, of which 80 819 (67.7%) were initial. Nationally, initial screens increased from 0 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.00) in 2011 to 29.6 (95% CI = 29.26 to 29.88) scans per 1000 eligible Veterans in 2018 (P_trend < .001). Initial screens increased over time within all geographic regions, most prominently in northeastern and Florida VAMCs.

Conclusion

VHA LDCT utilization increased from 2011 to 2018. However, overall utilization remained low. Future interventions are needed to increase lung cancer screening utilization among eligible Veterans.

Leveraging the Mammography Setting to Raise Awareness and Facilitate Referral to Lung Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Analysis

PURPOSE

Despite compelling support for the benefits of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer among high-risk individuals, awareness of LDCT screening and uptake remain low. The aim of this project was to explore the perspectives of ACR mammography screening program directors (MPDs) regarding efforts to raise LDCT screening awareness and appropriate referrals by identifying high-risk individuals participating in routine mammography.

METHODS

MPDs were recruited from ACR-accredited mammography facilities to participate in semistructured interviews after the completion of an online survey. Interviews were conducted over the telephone, recorded, transcribed, and subsequently reviewed for accuracy. Twenty MPDs were interviewed, and 18 interviews were transcribed and included in the thematic analysis. A theme codebook was developed, and all interviews were coded using NVivo by two trained reviewers.

RESULTS

Key themes were organized into four broad domains: (1) general attitudes toward the integration of LDCT screening, (2) identifying mammography patients at high risk for lung cancer, (3) counseling about LDCT screening, and (4) strategies to identify high-risk women and increase awareness and knowledge of LDCT screening. Overall, MPDs recognized the benefits of integrating mammography and LDCT screening and were receptive to educating and referring women for LDCT screening. However, training and workflow changes are needed to ensure successful implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative data suggest that MPDs are amenable to leveraging the mammography setting to engage women about LDCT screening; however, additional tools, training, and/or staffing may be necessary to leverage the full potential of reaching women at high risk for lung cancer within the context of mammographic screening.

Evaluation of the Informational Content and Readability of US Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites

IMPORTANCE

The internet is an important source of medical information for many patients and may have a key role in the education of patients about lung cancer screening (LCS). Although most LCS programs in the United States have informational websites, the accuracy, completeness, and readability of these websites have not previously been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the informational content and readability of US LCS program websites.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study assessed US LCS program websites identified on September 15, 2018. A standardized checklist was used to assess key informational content of each website, and text was analyzed for reading level, word count, and reading time. Links to US websites of national advocacy organizations with LCS program content were tabulated. All functional LCS program websites in Google internet search engine results using the search terms lung cancer screening, low-dose CT screening, and lung screening were included in the analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Radiologists used a standardized checklist to evaluate content, and readability was assessed with validated scales. Website word count, reading time, and number of links to outside LCS informational websites were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 257 LCS websites were included in the analysis. The word count ranged from 73 to 4410 (median, 571; interquartile range, 328-909). The reading time ranged from 0.3 to 19.6 minutes (median, 2.5; interquartile range, 1.5-4.0). The median reading level of all websites was grade 10 (interquartile range, 9-11). Only 26% (n = 66) of websites had at least 1 web link to a national website with additional information on LCS. There was wide variability regarding reported eligibility age criteria, with ages 55 to 77 years most frequently cited (42% [n = 108]). Only 56% (n = 143) of websites mentioned smoking cessation. The subject of patient cost was mentioned on 75% (n = 192) of websites. Although major LCS benefits, such as detection of lung cancer, were discussed by most (93% [n = 239]) websites, less than half of the websites (45% [n = 115]) made any mention of possible risks associated with screening.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There appears to be marked variability in the informational content of US LCS program websites, and the reading level of most websites is above that recommended by the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health. Efforts to improve website content and readability may be warranted.

The Patient Perspective on Lung Cancer Screening and Health Disparities

Lung cancer screening is just starting to be implemented across the United States. Challenges to screening include access to care, awareness of the option for screening, stigma and implicit bias that are due to stigmatization of smoking, stigma of race, nihilism with lung cancer diagnosis viewed as a "death sentence," shared decision making, and underestimation of lung cancer risk. African Americans (AA) have the highest lung cancer mortality rate in the United States despite similar smoking rates as whites. AAs are diagnosed at a later stage, and there is a greater likelihood they will refuse treatment options when diagnosed. Additionally, fewer AAs were found to meet lung cancer screening eligibility criteria compared with whites because of lower tobacco exposure and younger age at time of diagnosis. Outreach and access for lung cancer screening in the AA community and other subpopulations at risk are critical to avoid further increasing disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality as lung cancer screening is implemented across the United States. The path forward requires implementing outreach programs and providing lung cancer screening in underserved communities at high risk for lung cancer; consideration of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for screening selection criteria, including risk model screening selection; and developing interventions to address stigma, clinician implicit bias, and nihilism.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN): Advancing public health and implementation science

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is one of the thematic networks of the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Prevention Research Centers. Network members are academic research centers in the United States who collaborate with public health and community partners to accelerate the use of evidence-based interventions in communities to reduce the burden of cancer, especially among underserved populations. CPCRN studies include geographically dispersed populations, cross-institution partnerships, and opportunities for collaborative learning across network centers. Since its inception in 2002, CPCRN has worked to translate research on community-based intervention strategies into practice to improve cancer screening and reduce cancer risk. This commentary describes CPCRN's role in contributing to public health and the field of dissemination and implementation science. In addition, CDC and the National Cancer Institute describe how their joint support of the network contributes to each organization's goals and missions.

Evidence That Established Lung Cancer Mortality Disparities in American Indians Are Not Due to Lung Cancer Genetic Testing and Targeted Therapy Disparities

BACKGROUND

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) continue to experience extreme lung cancer health disparities. The state of Minnesota is home to over 70,000 AI/AN, and this population has a 2-fold increase in lung cancer mortality compared to other races within Minnesota. Genetic mutation testing in lung cancer is now a standard of high-quality lung cancer care, and EGFR mutation testing has been recommended for all adenocarcinoma lung cases, regardless of smoking status. However, genetic testing is a controversial topic for some AI/AN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a multisite retrospective chart review funded by the Minnesota Precision Medicine Grand Challenge as a demonstration project to examine lung cancer health disparities in AI/AN. We sought to measure epidemiology of lung cancer among AI receiving diagnosis or treatment in Minnesota cancer referral centers as well as rate of EGFR testing. The primary outcome was the rate of EGFR mutational analysis testing among cases and controls with nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer. We secured collaborations with 5 health care systems covering a diverse geographic and demographic population.

RESULTS

We identified 200 cases and 164 matched controls from these sites. Controls were matched on histology, smoking status, sex, and age. In both groups, about one third of subjects with adenocarcinoma received genetic mutation testing.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in mutation testing in AI compared to non-AI controls at large health care systems in Minnesota. These data indicate that other factors are likely contributing to the higher mortality in this group.

Lung Cancer Screening and Epigenetics in African Americans: The Role of the Socioecological Framework

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality in the U.S. and racial/ethnic minorities carry the greatest burden of lung cancer disparities with African Americans (AAs) impacted disproportionately. Inequities in lung cancer health disparities are often associated with multiple bio-behavioral and socio-cultural factors among racial/ethnic minorities. Epigenetic research has advanced the understanding of the intersectionality between biological and socio-cultural factors in lung cancer disparities among AAs. However, gaps exist in the engagement of diverse populations in epigenetic lung cancer research, which poses a challenge in ensuring the generalizability and implementation of epigenetic research in populations that carry an unequal cancer burden. Grounding epigenetic lung cancer research within a socio-ecological framework may prove promising in implementing a multi-level approach to community engagement, screening, navigation, and research participation among AAs. The University of Illinois Cancer Center (UI Cancer Center) is employing an evidence–based (EB) model of community/patient engagement utilizing the socio-ecological model (SEM) to develop a culturally sensitive epigenetic lung cancer research program that addresses multiple factors that impact lung cancer outcomes in AAs. By implementing epigenetic research within a group of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) guided by the SEM, the UI Cancer Center is proposing a new pathway in mitigating lung cancer disparities in underserved communities. At the individual level, the framework examines tobacco use among patients at FQHCs (the organizational level) and also tailors epigenetic research to explore innovative biomarkers in high risk populations. Interpersonal interventions use Patient Navigators to support navigation to EB tobacco cessation resources and lung cancer screening. Community level support within the SEM is developed by ongoing partnerships with local and national partners such as the American Lung Association (ALA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS). Lastly, at the policy level, the UI Cancer Center acknowledges the role of policy implications in lung cancer screening and advocates for policies and screening recommendations that examine the current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF).

Lung cancer screening: Practice guidelines and insurance coverage are not enough

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is expected to increase early detection of lung cancer and improve survival. The growth in the number of advanced nurse practitioners (NPs) in primary care settings increases the likelihood that an NP will serve as a patient's provider. This study's purpose was to examine knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding LDCT among NPs who work in primary care settings.

METHODS

An explanatory, sequential, mixed-method design used a 32-item questionnaire, followed by a semi-structured telephone interview. The development of the survey and interview questions were guided by a conceptual framework representing a temporal sequence for behavior change and potential barriers to guideline adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse practitioners believe that shared decision making with their high-risk patients about LDCT is within their scope of their practice. Working in time-constrained primary care settings, NPs have limited abilities to improve the uptake of LDCT. Substantial patient barriers exist that deter follow through on providers' recommendation. Disseminating guidelines and authorizing health insurance reimbursement is insufficient.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Research is needed that investigates the screening process so that barriers can be closely studied. Culture change is needed where early detection has greater value for insurers, providers, and patients.

Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Engagement from the Patient and Provider Perspective

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT reduces mortality among high-risk current and former smokers and has been covered by public and private insurers without cost sharing since 2015. Patients and referring providers confront numerous barriers to participation in screening. To best serve in multidisciplinary efforts to expand LCS nationwide, radiologists must be knowledgeable of these challenges. A better understanding of the difficulties confronted by other stakeholders will help radiologists continue to collaboratively guide the growth of LCS programs in their communities. This article reviews barriers to participation in LCS for patients and referring providers, as well as possible solutions and interventions currently underway.