Challenges and Opportunities for Lung Cancer Screening in Rural America

Predictors and Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening in the US: An Integrative Literature Review

Early detection of lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography decreases lung cancer mortality significantly, yet lung cancer screening (LCS) rates in the US remain low. This integrative review estimates LCS prevalence, identifies barriers, and highlights future research needs. A medical librarian searched PubMed, CINAHL, OVID Medline, and OVID Embase for quantitative US-based studies published between 2014-2023. A dual review of the abstracts of all articles was conducted by the authors (SS, LM, EC, HP) to determine the eligible articles based on the pre-determined inclusion/ exclusion criteria. After applying the inclusion criteria, 38 studies were analyzed. Findings indicate that LCS remains underutilized, with majority of studies reporting uptake rates below 30%. Disparities in LCS use were notable among racial and ethnic minoritized adults, uninsured individuals, and residents of specific regions. These results underscore the need for further research into disparities in LCS utilization and adherence. Future researchers should focus more on the factors that may cause LCS disparities, such as organizational-level policies, LCS access, and LCS decision-making resources, to improve LCS uptake throughout the country.

Predictors of Up-To-Date Lung Cancer Screening Among Eligible People in the United States: A Nationally Representative Dataset

This study examines the factors associated with up-to-date lung cancer screening (UTD-LCS) among eligible adults. We analyzed survey data from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and selected participants eligible for LCS. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between UTD-LCS and various factors, including demographics, mental and physical health, and access to healthcare. Among the respondents (Weighted N = 13,037,747), 8.18% were eligible for LCS. However, only 24.53% of those eligible had undergone screening in the past year. Individuals who self-identified as Asian (OR = 0.77, P = .008), American Indian (OR = 0.78, P = .002), and Hispanic (OR = 0.79, P = .006) were significantly less likely to participate in LCS screening. In contrast, married individuals (OR = 1.07, P = .019) and older adults aged 70 to 80 years (OR = 1.78, P < .001) were more likely to have undergone screening. Additionally, a poor physical health status was associated with UTD-LCS, as having more days of poor health increased the odds of screening (for 14 days or more: OR = 1.28, P < .001). Finally, having insurance (private plan: OR = 3.7, P < .001) and not experiencing medical cost issues (OR = 1.13, P = .025) were also associated with greater odds of being up-to-date on lung cancer screening. Our results underscore the need for targeted public health interventions that increase awareness and accessibility of LCS. The study also emphasizes the critical role of primary care providers in promoting screening.

Lung cancer disparities in rural, persistent poverty counties: a secondary data analysis

BACKGROUND

In the US, lung cancer burden is greater in counties that are either rural or in persistent poverty. This study examined lung cancer risk (e.g., smoking), incidence, and mortality across four county types defined by cross-classification of rurality and persistent poverty.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of county characteristics and lung cancer risk, incidence and mortality. We used data from USDA to classify counties according to rurality (using rural-urban continuum codes) and persistent poverty (i.e., 20% + of residents living below the poverty line for 30 + years). We used publicly-available data to calculate mean county-level prevalence of smoking among adults (in 2019), lung cancer incidence (2015-2019), and lung cancer mortality (2015-2019) across county types. Beta and binomial regression models assessed differences in smoking, lung cancer incidence, and lung cancer mortality by rurality and persistent poverty.

RESULTS

Among U.S. counties, 1,115 were urban, non-persistent poverty, 1,675 were rural, non-persistent poverty, 52 were urban, persistent poverty, and 301 were rural, persistent poverty. Smoking, lung cancer incidence, and lung cancer mortality were higher in rural counties and in persistent poverty counties than in their comparison counties. Counties that were both rural and persistent poverty had the highest rates of smoking, lung cancer incidence, and lung cancer mortality. Persistent poverty and rurality interacted in their relationship with smoking prevalence (p < 0.01), and lung cancer mortality (p < 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking, lung cancer incidence, and lung cancer mortality are highest in counties that are both rural and persistent poverty, suggesting an urgent need to develop targeted lung cancer interventions in these communities.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Provider engagement and outreach

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan for provider engagement and outreach addresses barriers to the uptake of lung cancer screening, including lack of provider awareness and guideline knowledge about screening, concerns about potential harms from false-positive examinations, lack of time to implement workflows within busy primary care practices, insufficient infrastructure and administrative support to manage a screening program and patient follow-up, and implicit bias based on sex, race/ethnicity, social class, and smoking status. Strategies to facilitate screening include educational programming, clinical reminder systems within the electronic medical record, decision support aids, and tools to track nodules that can be implemented across a diversity of practices and health care organizational structures. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan to reduce deaths from lung cancer includes strategies designed to support health care professionals, to better understand lung cancer screening, and to support adults who are eligible for lung cancer screening by providing counseling, referral, and follow-up.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Implementation of high-quality lung cancer screening

More than a decade has passed since researchers in the Early Lung Cancer Action Project and the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to save lives of high-risk individuals from lung cancer through regular screening by low dose computed tomography scan. The emergence of the most recent findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung-cancer screening trial (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek [NELSON]) further strengthens and expands on this evidence. These studies demonstrate the benefit of integrating lung cancer screening into clinical practice, yet lung cancer continues to lead cancer mortality rates in the United States. Fewer than 20% of screen eligible individuals are enrolled in lung cancer screening, leaving millions of qualified individuals without the standard of care and benefit they deserve. This article, part of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) strategic plan, examines the impediments to successful adoption, dissemination, and implementation of lung cancer screening. Proposed solutions identified by the ACS NLCRT Implementation Strategies Task Group and work currently underway to address these challenges to improve uptake of lung cancer screening are discussed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The evidence supporting the benefit of lung cancer screening in adults who previously or currently smoke has led to widespread endorsement and coverage by health plans. Lung cancer screening programs should be designed to promote high uptake rates of screening among eligible adults, and to deliver high-quality screening and follow-up care.

Disparities in Cancer Stage of Diagnosis by Rurality in California, 2015 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Cancer rates in rural areas vary by insurance status, socioeconomic status, region, race, and ethnicity.

METHODS

California Cancer Registry data (2015-2019) were used to investigate the stage of diagnosis by levels of rurality for the five most common cancers. The percentage of residents in rural blocks within census tract aggregation zones was categorized into deciles up to 50%. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate associations with rurality, with separate models by cancer site, sex, race, and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White and Hispanic). Covariates included individual-level and zone-level factors.

RESULTS

The percentage of late-stage cancer diagnosis was 28% for female breast, 27% for male prostate, 77% for male lung, 71% for female lung, 60% for male colorectal, 59% for female colorectal, 7.8% for male melanoma, and 5.9% for female melanoma. Increasing rurality was significantly associated with increased odds of late-stage cancer diagnosis for female breast cancer (Ptrend < 0.001), male lung cancer (Ptrend < 0.001), female lung cancer (Ptrend < 0.001), and male melanoma (Ptrend = 0.01), after adjusting for individual-level and zone-level factors. The strength of associations varied by sex and ethnicity. For males with lung cancer, odds of late-stage diagnosis in areas with >50% rural population was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45) for non-Hispanic White patients and 2.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-5.31) for Hispanic patients, compared with areas with 0% rural residents.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing rurality was associated with increased odds for late-stage diagnosis for breast cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, with the strength of associations varying across sex and ethnicity.

IMPACT

Our findings will inform cancer outreach to these rural subpopulations.

Clinical Validation of a Cell-Free DNA Fragmentome Assay for Augmentation of Lung Cancer Early Detection

Lung cancer screening via annual low-dose computed tomography has poor adoption. We conducted a prospective case-control study among 958 individuals eligible for lung cancer screening to develop a blood-based lung cancer detection test that when positive is followed by a low-dose computed tomography. Changes in genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation profiles (fragmentomes) in peripheral blood reflected genomic and chromatin characteristics of lung cancer. We applied machine learning to fragmentome features to identify individuals who were more or less likely to have lung cancer. We trained the classifier using 576 cases and controls from study samples and validated it in a held-out group of 382 cases and controls. The validation demonstrated high sensitivity for lung cancer and consistency across demographic groups and comorbid conditions. Applying test performance to the screening eligible population in a 5-year model with modest utilization assumptions suggested the potential to prevent thousands of lung cancer deaths. Significance: Lung cancer screening has poor adoption. Our study describes the development and validation of a novel blood-based lung cancer screening test utilizing a highly affordable, low-coverage genome-wide sequencing platform to analyze cell-free DNA fragmentation patterns. The test could improve lung cancer screening rates leading to substantial public health benefits. See related commentary by Haber and Skates, p. 2025.

Description of census-tract-level social determinants of health in cancer surveillance data

BACKGROUND

Disparities in cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality persist by race, ethnicity, and many other social determinants, such as census-tract-level socioeconomic status (SES), poverty, and rurality. Census-tract-level measures of these determinants are useful for analyzing trends in cancer disparities.

METHODS

The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate the availability of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program's specialized census-tract-level dataset and provide basic descriptive cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, and survival for 8 cancer sites, which can be screened regularly or associated with infectious agents. We present these analyses according to several census-tract-level measures, including the newly available persistent poverty as well as SES quintile, rurality, and race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Census tracts with persistent poverty and low SES had higher cancer incidence rates (except for breast and prostate cancer), higher percentages of cases diagnosed with regional or distant-stage disease, and lower survival than non-persistent-poverty and higher-SES tracts. Outcomes varied by cancer site when analyzing based on rurality as well as race and ethnicity. Analyses stratified by multiple determinants showed unique patterns of outcomes, which bear further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

This article introduces the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results specialized dataset, which contains census-tract-level social determinants measures, including persistent poverty, rurality, SES quintile, and race and ethnicity. We demonstrate the capacity of these variables for use in producing trends and analyses focusing on cancer health disparities. Analyses may inform interventions and policy changes that improve cancer outcomes among populations living in disadvantaged areas, such as persistent-poverty tracts.

Rural-Urban Cancer Incidence and Trends in the United States, 2000 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Despite consistent improvements in cancer prevention and care, rural and urban disparities in cancer incidence persist in the United States. Our objective was to further examine rural-urban differences in cancer incidence and trends.

METHODS

We used the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries dataset to investigate rural-urban differences in 5-year age-adjusted cancer incidence (2015-2019) and trends (2000-2019), also examining differences by region, sex, race/ethnicity, and tumor site. Age-adjusted rates were calculated using SEER∗Stat 8.4.1, and trend analysis was done using Joinpoint, reporting annual percent changes (APC).

RESULTS

We observed higher all cancer combined 5-year incidence rates in rural areas (457.6 per 100,000) compared with urban areas (447.9), with the largest rural-urban difference in the South (464.4 vs. 449.3). Rural populations also exhibited higher rates of tobacco-associated, human papillomavirus-associated, and colorectal cancers, including early-onset cancers. Tobacco-associated cancer incidence trends widened between rural and urban from 2000 to 2019, with significant, but varying, decreases in urban areas throughout the study period, whereas significant rural decreases only occurred between 2016 and 2019 (APC = -0.96). Human papillomavirus-associated cancer rates increased in both populations until recently with urban rates plateauing whereas rural rates continued to increase (e.g., APC = 1.56, 2002-2019).

CONCLUSIONS

Rural populations had higher overall cancer incidence rates and higher rates of cancers with preventive opportunities compared with urban populations. Improvements in these rates were typically slower in rural populations.

IMPACT

Our findings underscore the complex nature of rural-urban disparities, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and policies to reduce disparities and achieve equitable health outcomes.

Area-based disparities in non-small-cell lung cancer survival

BACKGROUND

In the Nordic countries, universal healthcare access has been effective in reducing socioeconomic disparities in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) management. However, other factors, such as proximity to healthcare facilities, may still affect access to care. This study aimed at investigating the influence of residential area on NSCLC survival.

METHODS

This population-based study utilized hospital records to identify NSCLC patients who underwent their initial treatment at Vaasa Central Hospital between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. Patients were categorized based on their postal codes into urban areas (≤50 km from the hospital) and rural areas (>50 km from the hospital). Survival rates between these two groups were compared using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patients were included in the study. Patients residing in rural areas (n = 104) exhibited poorer 12-month survival rates compared to their urban counterparts (n = 217) (unadjusted Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.01-1.89; p = 0.042). After adjusting for factors such as performance status, frailty, and stage at diagnosis in a multivariate Cox regression model, the adjusted HR increased to 1.47 (95% CI: 1.07-2.01; p = 0.017) for patients living in rural areas compared to those in urban areas.

INTERPRETATION

The study findings indicate that the distance to the hospital is associated with increased lung cancer mortality. This suggests that geographical proximity may play a crucial role in the disparities observed in NSCLC survival rates. Addressing these disparities should involve strategies aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, particularly for patients residing in rural areas, to enhance NSCLC outcomes and reduce mortality.

Equitable implementation of lung cancer screening: avoiding its potential to mirror existing inequities among people who use tobacco

PURPOSE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, but the advent of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography offers a tremendous opportunity to improve lung cancer outcomes. Unfortunately, implementation of lung cancer screening has been hampered by substantial barriers and remains suboptimal. Specifically, the commentary emphasizes the intersectionality of smoking history and several important sociodemographic characteristics and identities that should inform lung cancer screening outreach and engagement efforts, including socioeconomic considerations (e.g., health insurance status), racial and ethnic identity, LGBTQ + identity, mental health history, military experience/veteran status, and geographic residence in addressing specific community risk factors and future interventions in efforts to make strides toward equitable lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Members of the Equitable Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Interest Group with the Cancer Prevention and Control Network (CPCRN) provide a critical commentary based on existing literature regarding smoking trends in the US and lung cancer screening uptake to propose opportunities to enhance implementation and support equitable distribution of the benefits of lung cancer screening.

CONCLUSION

The present commentary utilizes information about historical trends in tobacco use to highlight opportunities for targeted outreach efforts to engage communities at high risk with information about the lung cancer screening opportunity. Future efforts toward equitable implementation of lung cancer screening should focus on multi-level implementation strategies that engage and work in concert with community partners to co-create approaches that leverage strengths and reduce barriers within specific communities to achieve the potential of lung cancer screening.

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.

Racial disparity and regional variance in healthcare utilization among patients with lung cancer in US hospitals during 2016-2019

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer health disparities are related to various patient factors. This study describes regional differences in healthcare utilization and racial characteristics to identify high-risk areas. This study aimed to identify regions and races at greater risk for lung cancer health disparities based on differences in healthcare utilization, measured here by hospital charges and length of stay.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample of the United States was used to identify patients with lung cancer (n = 92,159, weighted n = 460,795) from 2016 to 2019. We examined the characteristics of the patient sample and the association between the racial and regional variables and healthcare utilization, measured by hospital charges and length of stay. The multivariate sample weighted linear regression model estimated how racial and regional variables are associated with healthcare utilization.

RESULTS

Out of 460,795 patients, 76.4% were white, and 40.2% were from the South. The number of lung cancer patients during the study periods was stable. However, hospital charges were somewhat increased, and the length of stay was decreased during the study period. Sample weighted linear regression results showed that Hispanic & Asian patients were associated with 21.1% and 12.3% higher hospital charges than White patients. Compared with the Northeast, Midwest and South were associated with lower hospital charges, however, the West was associated with higher hospital charges.

CONCLUSION

Minority groups and regions are at an increased risk for health inequalities because of differences in healthcare utilization. Further differences in utilization by insurance type may exacerbate the situation for some patients with lung cancer. Hospital managers and policymakers working with these patient populations in identified areas should strive to address these disparities through special prevention programs and targeted financial assistance.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients in western Pennsylvania: rural-urban disparities

PURPOSE

Disparities in cancer care persist between patients living in rural versus urban areas. The COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted concerns related to care and personal health differently in rural cancer patients. Using survey data collected from cancer patients in western Pennsylvania, we examined pandemic-related distress, concerns related to cancer care, impact on personal health, and the extent to which these differed by urban-rural residence.

METHODS

Patients filled out an initial survey in August-December 2020; a second survey was completed in March 2021. The following patient concerns related to the pandemic were evaluated: threat of COVID-19 to their health, pandemic-related distress, perceptions of cancer care, and vaccine hesitancy. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine relationships between these outcomes and urban-rural residence as well as patient-related factors, including anxiety symptoms and social support.

RESULTS

The study sample included 1,980 patients, 17% resided in rural areas. COVID-19 represented a major or catastrophic threat to personal health for 39.7% of rural and 49.0% of urban patients (p = 0.0017). Patients with high general anxiety were 10-times more likely to experience pandemic-related distress (p < 0.001). In the follow-up survey (n = 983), vaccine hesitancy was twice as prevalent among rural patients compared to urban (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The extent to which perceptions of the threat of COVD-19 to personal health and vaccine hesitancy exacerbates rural-urban disparities in cancer care and prognosis warrants further study. Cancer patients may be vulnerable to heightened anxiety and distress triggered by the pandemic.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND

Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues.

RESULTS

Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Rural Disparities in Lung Cancer-directed Surgery: A Medicare Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to determine the influence of rural residence on access to and outcomes of lung cancer-directed surgery for Medicare beneficiaries.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancerrelated death in the United States and rural patients have 20% higher mortality. Drivers of rural disparities along the continuum of lung cancercare delivery are poorly understood.

METHODS

Medicare claims (2015-2018) were used to identify 126,352 older adults with an incident diagnosis of nonmetastatic lung cancer. Rural Urban Commuting Area codes were used to define metropolitan, micropolitan, small town, and rural site of residence. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated influence of place of residence on 1) receipt of cancer-directed surgery, 2) time from diagnosis to surgery, and 3) postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Metropolitan beneficiaries had higher rate of cancer-directed surgery (22.1%) than micropolitan (18.7%), small town (17.5%), and isolated rural (17.8%) (P < 0.001). Compared to patients from metropolitan areas, there were longer times from diagnosis to surgery for patients living in micropolitan, small, and rural communities. Multivariable models found nonmetropolitan residence to be associated with lower odds of receiving cancer-directed surgery and MIS. Nonmetropolitan residence was associated with higher odds of having postoperative emergency department visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Residence in nonmetropolitan areas is associated with lower probability of cancer-directed surgery, increased time to surgery, decreased use of MIS, and increased postoperative ED visits. Attention to timely access to surgery and coordination of postoperative care for nonmetropolitan patients could improve care delivery.

Favorable Mortality-to-Incidence Ratio Trends of Lung Cancer in Countries with High Computed Tomography Density

Background and Objectives: The prognoses of lung cancer deteriorate dramatically as the cancer progresses through its stages. Therefore, early screening using techniques such as low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is critical. However, the epidemiology of the association between the popularization of CT and the prognosis for lung cancer is not known. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from GLOBOCAN and the health data and statistics of the World Health Organization. Mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) and the changes in MIR over time (δMIR; calculated as the difference between MIRs in 2018 and 2012) were used to evaluate the correlation with CT density disparities via Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Results: Countries with zero CT density presented a relatively low incidence crude rate and a relatively high MIR in 2018 and a negative δMIR. Conversely, countries with a CT density over 30 had a positive δMIR. The CT density was significantly associated with the HDI score and MIR in 2018, whereas it demonstrated no association with MIR in 2012. The CT density and δMIR also showed a significant linear correlation. Conclusions: CT density was significantly associated with lung cancer MIR in 2018 and with δMIR, indicating favorable clinical outcomes in countries in which CT has become popularized.

Aging in Rural Communities

Purpose of Review

Population aging is occurring worldwide, particularly in developed countries such as the United States (US). However, in the US, the population is aging more rapidly in rural areas than in urban areas. Healthy aging in rural areas presents unique challenges. Understanding and addressing those challenges is essential to ensure healthy aging and promote health equity across the lifespan and all geographies. This review aims to present findings and evaluate recent literature (2019-2022) on rural aging and highlight future directions and opportunities to improve population health in rural communities.

Recent Findings

The review first addresses several methodological considerations in measuring rurality, including the choice of measure used, the composition of each measure, and the limitations and drawbacks of each measure. Next, the review considers important concepts and context when describing what it means to be rural, including social, cultural, economic, and environmental conditions. The review assesses several key epidemiologic studies addressing rural-urban differences in population health among older adults. Health and social services in rural areas are then discussed in the context of healthy aging in rural areas. Racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, and informal caregivers are considered as special populations in the discussion of rural older adults and healthy aging. Lastly, the review provides evidence to support critical longitudinal, place-based research to promote healthy aging across the rural-urban divide is highlighted.

Summary

Policies, programs, and interventions to reduce rural-urban differences in population health and to promote health equity and healthy aging necessitate a context-specific approach. Considering the cultural context and root causes of rural-urban differences in population health and healthy aging is essential to support the real-world effectiveness of such programs, policies, and interventions.

Assessment of Uptake Appropriateness of Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening According to Patients Meeting Eligibility Criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used for lung cancer screening (LCS) among populations with various levels of compliance to the eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations and may represent suboptimal allocation of health care resources.

Objective

To evaluate the appropriateness of CT LCS according to the USPSTF eligibility criteria.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Participants included individuals who responded to the LCS module administered in 20 states and had valid answers to questions regarding screening and smoking history. Data were analyzed between October 2021 and August 2022.

Exposures

Screening eligibility groups were categorized according to the USPSTF 2013 recommendations, and subgroups of individuals who underwent LCS were analyzed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes included LCS among the screening-eligible population and the proportions of the screened populations according to compliance categories established from the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations. In addition, the association between respondents' characteristics and LCS was evaluated for the subgroup who were screened despite not meeting any of the 3 USPSTF screening criteria: age, pack-year, and years since quitting smoking.

Results

A total of 96 097 respondents were identified for the full study cohort, and 2 subgroups were constructed: (1) 3374 respondents who reported having a CT or computerized axial tomography to check for lung cancer and (2) 33 809 respondents who did not meet any screening eligibility criteria. The proportion of participants who were under 50 years old was 53.1%; between 50 and 54, 9.1%; between 55 and 79, 33.8%; and over 80, 4.0%. A total of 51 536 (50.9%) of the participants were female. According to the USPSTF 2013 recommendation, 807 (12.8%) of the screening-eligible population underwent LCS. Among those who were screened, only 807 (20.9%) met all 3 screening eligibility criteria, whereas 538 (20.1%) failed to meet any criteria. Among respondents in subgroup 2, being of older age and having a history of stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, or diabetes were associated with higher likelihood of LCS.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of the BRFSS 2019 survey, the low uptake rate among screening-eligible patients undermined the goal of LCS of early detection. Suboptimal screening patterns could increase health system costs and add financial stress, psychological burden, and physical harms to low-risk patients, while failing to provide high-quality preventive services to individuals at high risk of lung cancer.

Barriers and facilitators for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening in rural populations in the United States: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to identify barriers and facilitators for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening uptake and adherence among rural populations in the United States.

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and cancer patients from rural areas have poorer outcomes than those from metropolitan areas. Evidence exists that lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography significantly increases survival time but is also significantly underutilized.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies completed in the United States with adults who fit United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for lung cancer screening and who live in rural areas will be included. Studies published in English since 2013 that report on barriers and facilitators for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening uptake and adherence will be included in this review. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods studies will be included, along with opinion pieces published by government agencies or professional cancer-related organizations.

METHODS

The search strategy will locate published primary studies, reviews, and opinion papers, including those by government and nonprofit agencies focused on cancer. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Gray literature databases and sources of unpublished studies will also be searched. Independent reviewers will be used throughout the search and selection process.

A Multilevel Approach to Investigate Relationships Between Healthcare Resources and Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening for lung cancer is an evidence-based but 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 healthcare providers to help patients with decision-making and impedes equity-focused implementation of screening-supportive services.

OBJECTIVES

This analysis used data from the 2012-2016 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and the 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 the New York state SEER data, we identified 68,990 lung cancer patients aged 20-112 years; 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' healthcare 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.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Cancer Outcomes: Opportunities for Future Research

Cancer care disparities among rural populations are increasingly documented and may be worsening, likely because of the impact of rurality on access to state-of-the-art cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services, as well as higher rates of risk factors such as smoking and obesity. In 2018, the American Society of Clinical Oncology undertook an initiative to understand and address factors contributing to rural cancer care disparities. A key pillar of this initiative was to identify knowledge gaps and promote the research needed to understand the magnitude of difference in outcomes in rural vs nonrural settings, the drivers of those differences, and interventions to address them. The purpose of this review is to describe continued knowledge gaps and areas of priority research to address them. We conducted a comprehensive literature review by searching the PubMed (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published in English between 1971 and 2021 and restricted to primary reports from populations in the United States and abstracted data to synthesize current evidence and identify continued gaps in knowledge. Our review identified continuing gaps in the literature regarding the underlying causes of rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes. Rapid advances in cancer care will worsen existing disparities in outcomes for rural patients without directed effort to understand and address barriers to high-quality care in these areas. Research should be prioritized to address ongoing knowledge gaps about the drivers of rurality-based disparities and preventative and corrective interventions.

Urban–Rural Disparities in the Lung Cancer Surgical Treatment Pathway: The Paradox of a Rich, Small Region

Introduction

Rural populations in large countries often receive delayed or less effective diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer. Differences are related to population-based factors such as lower pro capita income or increased risk factors or to differences in access to facilities. Switzerland is a small, rich country with peculiar geographic and urban characteristics.

We explored the relationship between lung cancer diagnostic–surgical pathway and urban–rural residency in our region.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 280 consecutive patients treated for primary non-small cell lung cancer at our institution (2017–2021). This is a regional tertiary center for diagnosis and treatment, and data were extracted from a prospectively collected clinical database. We included anatomical lung resection. Collected variables included patients and surgical characteristics, risk factors, comorbidities, histology and staging, symptoms (vs. incidental diagnosis), general practitioner (GP) involvement, health insurance, and suspected test-treatment interval. The exposure was rurality, defined by the 2009 rural–urban residency classification from the Department of Land.

Results

A total of 150 patients (54%) lived in rural areas. Rural patients had a higher rate of smoking history (93% vs. 82%; p = 0.007). Symptomatic vs. incidental diagnosis did not differ as well as previous cancer rate, insurance, and pathological staging. In rural patients, there was a greater burden of comorbidities (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index Age-Adjusted 5.3 in rural population vs. 4.8 in urban population, p = 0.05), and GP was more involved in the diagnostic pathway (51% vs. 39%, p = 0.04). The interval between the first suspected test and treatment was significantly shorter (56 vs. 66.5 days, p = 0.03). Multiple linear regression with backward elimination was run. These variables statistically predicted the time from the first suspected test and surgical treatment [F(3, 270), p < .05, R² = 0.24]: rurality (p = 0.04), GP involvement (p = 0.04), and presence of lung cancer-related symptoms (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

In our territory with inhomogeneous population distribution and geographic barriers, residency has an impact on the lung cancer pathway. It seems paradoxical that rural patients had a shorter route. The more constant involvement of GP might explain this finding, having suggested more tests for high-risk patients in the absence of symptoms or follow-ups. This did not change the staging of surgical patients, but it might be essential for the organization of an effective lung cancer screening program.

Implementation and Uptake of Rural Lung Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

Given the higher rates of tobacco use along with increased mortality specific to lung cancer in rural settings, low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening could be particularly beneficial to such populations. However, limited radiology facilities and increased geographical distance, combined with lower income and education along with reduced patient engagement, present heightened barriers to screening initiation and adherence.

METHODS

In collaboration with community leaders and stakeholders, we developed and implemented a community-based lung cancer screening program, including telephone-based navigation and tobacco cessation counseling support, serving 18 North Texas counties. Funding was available to support clinical services costs where needed. We collected data on LDCT referrals, orders, and completion.

RESULTS

To raise awareness for lung cancer screening, we leveraged our established collaborative network of more than 700 community partners. In the first year of operation, 107 medical providers referred 570 patients for lung cancer screening, of whom 488 (86%) were eligible for LDCT. The most common reasons for ineligibility were age (43%) and insufficient tobacco history (20%). Of 381 ordered LDCTs, 334 (88%) were completed. Among screened patients, 61% were current smokers and 36% had insurance coverage for the procedure. The program cost per patient was $430.

DISCUSSION

Implementation, uptake, and completion of LDCT-based lung cancer screening is feasible in rural settings. Community outreach, health promotion, and algorithm-based navigation may support such efforts. Given low lung cancer screening rates nationally and heightened lung cancer risk in rural populations, similar programs in other regions may be particularly impactful.

Geographic access to lung cancer screening among eligible adults living in rural and urban environments in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although recommended lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, annual screening rates remain low. This study complements a previous nationwide assessment of access to lung cancer screening within 40 miles by evaluating differences in accessibility across rural and urban settings for the population aged 50 to 80 years and a subset eligible population based on the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force LDCT lung screening recommendations.

METHODS

Distances from population centers to screening facilities (American College of Radiology Lung Cancer Screening Registry) were calculated, and the number of individuals who had access within graduating distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, were estimated. Census tract results were aggregated to counties, and both geographies were classified with rural-urban schemas.

RESULTS

Approximately 5% of the eligible population did not have access to lung cancer screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility were observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural-urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there was a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access. Although the rural population represented approximately 8% of the eligible population, the larger percentage of the rural population with no access was noteworthy and translated into a larger number of individuals with no access at longer distance thresholds (≥40 miles).

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in access should be examined as both percentages of the population and numbers of individuals with no access in order to tailor interventions to communities and increase access. Geospatial analysis at the census tract level is recommended to help to identify optimal focus areas and reach the most people.

LAY SUMMARY

As annual lung cancer screening rates remain low, this study examines access to lung cancer screening nationwide and across rural and urban settings. A geographic information system network analysis of census tract-level populations is used to estimate access at different distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, and the results are aggregated to counties. Approximately 5% of the eligible population does not have access to screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility are observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural-urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there is a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access.

Health Care Disparities in Radiology-A Review of the Current Literature

INTRODUCTION

Health care disparities exist in all medical specialties, including radiology. Raising awareness of established health care disparities is a critical component of radiology's efforts to mitigate disparities. Our primary objective is to perform a comprehensive review of the last 10 years of literature pertaining to disparities in radiology care. Our secondary objective is to raise awareness of disparities in radiology.

METHODS

We reviewed English-language medicine and health services literature from the past 10 years (2010-2020) for research that described disparities in any aspect of radiologic imaging using radiology search terms and key words for disparities in OVID. Relevant studies were identified with adherence to the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

The search yielded a total 1,890 articles. We reviewed the citations and abstracts with the initial search yielding 1,890 articles (without duplicates). Of these, 1,776 were excluded based on the criteria set forth in the methods. The remaining unique 114 articles were included for qualitative synthesis.

DISCUSSION

We hope this article increases awareness and inspires action to address disparities and encourages research that further investigates previously identified disparities and explores not-yet-identified disparities.

Contemporary national trends and disparities for head CT use in emergency department settings: Insights from National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) 2007-2017

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth in CT utilization in emergency department (ED) until 2008 raised concerns regarding cost and radiation exposure. Head CT was one of the commonest studies. This led to mitigating efforts such as appropriate use guidelines, policy and payment reforms. The impact of these efforts is not fully understood. In addition, disparities in outcomes of acute conditions presenting to the ED is well known however recent trends in imaging utilization patterns and disparities are not well understood. In this study, we describe nationwide trends and disparities associated with head CT in ED settings between 2007 and 2014.

METHODS

We analyzed 2007-2017 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) with the primary goal to assess the rate and patterns of head CT imaging in ED.

RESULTS

There were an estimated 117 million in 2007 and 139 million ED visits in 2017. There was a 4% increase in the any CT use in 2017 compared to 2007. No significant change in head CT utilization rate was seen. The 2007 head CT rate was 6.7% (95% CI: 6.1-7.3) compared to 7.7% (95% CI: 6.8-8.6) in 2017. Trauma, Headache and Dizziness are the top three indications for head CT use in the ED respectively. On adjusted analyses, significantly higher head CT utilization was seen in elderly, (age>65 yrs) and significantly lower utilization rate was seen in Non-Hispanic Black and Medicaid patients, and patients in rural locations.

CONCLUSIONS

Previously reported exponential growth of CT use in ED is no longer seen. In particular, there was no significant change in ED head CT use between 2007 and 2017. Headache and Dizziness remain commonly used indications despite limited utility in most clinical scenarios, indicating continued need for appropriate use of imaging. There is significantly lower CT utilization in Non-Hispanic Black, Medicaid patients and those in rural locations, suggesting disparities in diagnostic work-up in marginalized and rural populations. This underscores the need for standardizing care regardless of race, insurance status and location.

Association of Rurality With Annual Repeat Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration

PURPOSE

Lung cancer causes the largest number of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Lung cancer incidence rates, mortality rates, and rates of advanced stage disease are higher among those who live in rural areas. Known disparities in lung cancer outcomes between rural and nonrural populations may be in part because of barriers faced by rural populations. The authors tested the hypothesis that among Veterans who receive initial lung cancer screening, rural Veterans would be less likely to complete annual repeat screening than nonrural Veterans.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 10 Veterans Affairs medical centers from 2015 to 2019. Rural and nonrural Veterans undergoing lung cancer screening were identified. Rural status was defined using the rural-urban commuting area codes. The primary outcome was annual repeat lung cancer screening in the 9- to 15-month window (primary analysis) and 31-day to 18-month window (sensitivity analysis) after the first documented lung cancer screening. To examine rurality as a predictor of annual repeat lung cancer screening, multivariable logistic regression models were used.

RESULTS

In the final analytic sample of 11,402 Veterans, annual repeat lung cancer screening occurred in 27.7% of rural Veterans (641 of 2,316) and 31.8% of nonrural Veterans (2,891 of 9,086) (adjusted odds ratio: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.03). Similar results were seen in the sensitivity analysis, with 41.6% of rural Veterans (963 of 2,316) versus 45.2% of nonrural Veterans (4,110 of 9,086) (adjusted odds ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.04) having annual repeat screening in the expanded 31-day to 18-month window.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a national cohort of Veterans, rural residence was associated with numerically lower odds of annual repeat lung cancer screening than nonrural residence. Continued, intentional outreach efforts to increase annual repeat lung cancer screening among rural Veterans may offer an opportunity to decrease deaths from lung cancer.

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 implementation: Complexities and priorities

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.

Examining lung cancer screening utilization with public-use data: Opportunities and challenges

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for high-risk smokers who meet specific eligibility criteria. Current guidelines suggest that eligible adults with a heavy smoking history will benefit from annual low dose computed tomography but due to several associated risks (e.g., false-positives, radiation exposure, overdiagnosis) a shared decision-making consultation is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. In order to examine potential for tracking LCS uptake, adherence, and patient-provider communication at a national level, we reviewed four regularly publicly available national surveys (National Health Interview Survey [NHIS], Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS], National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES], and Health Information National Trends Survey [HINTS]) to assess available data; an overview of 37 publications using these sources is also provided. The results show that none of the surveys include items that fully assess current LCS guidelines. Implications for future research-including the potential to examine factors associated with LCS uptake and patient-provider communication-are addressed.

Using Population-Based Cancer Registration Data and Period Analysis to Accurately Assess and Predict 5-Year Relative Survival for Lung Cancer Patients in Eastern China

Background

The assessment of long-term survival of lung cancer patients based on data from population-based caner registries, using period analysis, was scarce in China. We aimed to accurately assess the long-term survival of lung cancer patients, and to predict the long-term survival in the future, using cancer registry data from Taizhou City, eastern China.

Methods

Four cancer registries with high-quality data were selected. Patients diagnosed with lung cancer during 2004–2018 were included. The long-term survival was evaluated using period analysis, with further stratification by sex, age at diagnosis and region. Additionally, projected 5-year relative survival (RS) of lung cancer patients for 2019-2023 was evaluated, using model-based period analysis.

Results

The 5-year RS of lung cancer patients diagnosed during 2014–2018 was 40.2% (31.5% for men and 56.2% for women). A moderate age gradient was observed for the period estimate, with the estimate decreasing from 50.5 to 26.5% in the age group of 15–44 years and ≥75 years, respectively. The 5-year RS of urban area was higher than that of rural area (52.3% vs. 38.9%). The overall projected 5-year RS of lung cancer patients was 52.7% for 2019–2023, with estimate of 43.0 and 73.2% for men and women, respectively. A moderate age gradient was also observed for the projected estimate. Moreover, estimate reached nearly 50% for rural and urban areas.

Conclusion

Period analysis tended to provide the up-to-date and precise survival estimates for lung cancer patients, which is worth further application, and provides important evidence for prevention and intervention of lung cancer.

Rural barriers to early lung cancer detection: Exploring access to lung cancer screening programs in New Hampshire and Vermont

BACKGROUND

Rural populations face many health disadvantages compared to urban areas. There is a critical need to better understand the current lung cancer screening landscape in these communities to identify targeted areas to improve the impact of this proven tool.

METHODS

Data from the County Health Rankings of New Hampshire and Vermont was reviewed for population density, distribution of adult smokers, and level of education compared to the distribution of Lung Cancer Screening Facilities throughout these two states.

RESULTS

Screening programs in southern counties of Vermont with lower levels of education have decreased access. In New Hampshire, there are no programs within 30 miles of the areas with the largest distribution of smokers, and decreased access in some areas with the lowest levels of education.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving equitable access to high-quality screening services in rural regions and the creation of targeted interventions to address decreased access in areas of high tobacco use and low education is vital to decreasing the incidence of latestage presentations of lung cancer within these populations.

Low-dose CT lung cancer screening uptake: A rural-urban comparison

PURPOSE

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) in high-risk individuals. Our objective was to identify demographic, health, and financial factors associated with screening uptake, with a focus on urban-rural differences.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2018 and 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and its optional Lung Cancer Screening Module to examine factors associated with screening uptake among 20 states that administered the optional module. We compared differences in factors associated with uptake overall and by geographical regions and conducted multivariable logistic mixed-effects regression, accounting for participant clustering by state to assess the impact of these factors on uptake.

FINDINGS

Overall 1,268 participants underwent LDCT screening with no significant differences observed between rural (16.3%) and urban residents (17.7%, p = 0.67). In multivariable models, rural residents did not differ significantly in their LDCT screening uptake (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.67-1.09, p = 0.20), but uptake was significantly higher for participants with underlying chronic respiratory conditions, veterans, those with higher pack-year history, and those with poor/fair general health and prior history of cancer. Uptake declined with age, higher education level, concerns about paying for medical care, and lack of primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Modifiable targets can be leveraged to increase LDCT screening. Based on significant predictors of screening uptake, clinicians should prioritize interventions that effectively consider smoking history as well as those identified as effective in veterans' health settings. Additionally, reducing structural barriers to care related to insurance and income will be key to reducing disparities.

Public Health Foundations for Radiology Resident Education: Healthcare Disparities in Radiology

Increasing recognition within the medical literature and by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has been attributed to the need for enhanced resident education on concepts related to public health and health equity. Despite increasing documentation of pervasive inequalities within the scope of radiology, dedicated curricula designed to improve cultural competency and understanding of healthcare disparities among radiology trainees remains sparse. With relatively fewer patient interactions, radiology trainees are particularly susceptible to insufficient contextual awareness of how socioeconomic factors influence patient health and behaviors, physician recommendations, and ultimately clinical outcomes. The purpose of this article is to provide a high-yield background of foundational health equity and disparity concepts for radiology trainees, from which additional educational curricula may be derived. Specifically, this article will discuss the fundamental socioeconomic factors known to contribute to discrepant access and use of imaging services, followed by areas in radiology with well-documented disparities of which trainees should be aware. Lastly, previous and current strategies for addressing disparities in radiology will be discussed with the ultimate goal of stimulating trainee participation and the development of novel approaches.

Potential Disparities by Sex and Race or Ethnicity in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Rates

BACKGROUND

Criteria for low-dose CT scan lung cancer screening vary across guidelines. Knowledge of the eligible pool across demographic groups can enable policy and programmatic decision-making, particularly for disproportionately affected populations.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the eligibility rates for low-dose CT scan screening according to sex and race or ethnicity and how do these rates relate to corresponding lung cancer incidence rates?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study using data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey adult and cancer control supplement files. In addition to eligibility rates, the ratio of the eligibility rate to the lung cancer incidence rate in a given population group (eligibility to incidence [E-I] ratio) also was determined. Guidelines assessed were: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and US Preventive Services Task Force current or with expansion of age and smoking or quit thresholds. We also assessed a risk model (PLCO_M2012 risk model).

RESULTS

Total numbers eligible based on current guidelines ranged from 8.3 to 13.3 million, representing 8.3% to 13.4% of the US population 50 to 80 years of age, and up to 17.5 million with expanded criteria. Overall eligibility rates on average were about 10 percentage points higher for men than women. For both men and women, and both overall and among ever smokers, non-Hispanic Whites had the highest eligibility rates across all guidelines, followed generally by non-Hispanic Blacks, and then Asians and Hispanics. Among both men and women, non-Hispanic Whites had the highest E-I ratios across all guidelines; non-Hispanic Black men had higher lung cancer incidence, but 30% to 50% lower E-I ratios, than non-Hispanic White men.

INTERPRETATION

Screening eligibility rates vary widely across guidelines, with disparities evident in E-I ratios, including among non-Hispanic Black men, despite higher lung cancer burden. Consideration of smoking duration in risk assessment criteria may address current disparities.

The Intersection of Rural Residence and Minority Race/Ethnicity in Cancer Disparities in the United States

One in every twenty-five persons in America is a racial/ethnic minority who lives in a rural area. Our objective was to summarize how racism and, subsequently, the social determinants of health disproportionately affect rural racial/ethnic minority populations, provide a review of the cancer disparities experienced by rural racial/ethnic minority groups, and recommend policy, research, and intervention approaches to reduce these disparities. We found that rural Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations experience greater poverty and lack of access to care, which expose them to greater risk of developing cancer and experiencing poorer cancer outcomes in treatment and ultimately survival. There is a critical need for additional research to understand the disparities experienced by all rural racial/ethnic minority populations. We propose that policies aim to increase access to care and healthcare resources for these communities. Further, that observational and interventional research should more effectively address the intersections of rurality and race/ethnicity through reduced structural and interpersonal biases in cancer care, increased data access, more research on newer cancer screening and treatment modalities, and continued intervention and implementation research to understand how evidence-based practices can most effectively reduce disparities among these populations.

Urban-Rural Disparities in Access to Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening in Missouri and Illinois

Introduction

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended for current and former smokers who meet eligibility criteria. Few studies have quantitatively examined disparities in access to LDCT screening. The objective of this study was to examine relationships between 1) rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and access to LDCT lung cancer screening and 2) screening access and lung cancer mortality.

Methods

We used census block group and county-level data from Missouri and Illinois. We defined access to screening as presence of an accredited screening center within 30 miles of residence as of May 2019. We used mixed-effects logistic models for screening access and county-level multiple linear regression models for lung cancer mortality.

Results

Approximately 97.6% of metropolitan residents had access to screening, compared with 41.0% of nonmetropolitan residents. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, the odds of having access to screening in rural areas were 17% of the odds in metropolitan areas (95% CI, 12%–26%). We observed no association between screening access and lung cancer mortality. Southeastern Missouri, a rural and impoverished area, had low levels of screening access, high smoking prevalence, and high lung cancer mortality.

Conclusion

Although access to LDCT is lower in rural areas than in urban areas, lung cancer mortality in rural residents is multifactorial and cannot be explained by access alone. Targeted efforts to implement rural LDCT screening could reduce geographic disparities in access, although further research is needed to understand how increased access to screening could affect uptake and rural disparities in lung cancer mortality.

Predictors of Lung Cancer Screening Utilization in a Population-Based Survey

PURPOSE

Annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in high-risk individuals has been recommended to detect lung cancer earlier and reduce mortality. The objective of this study was to identify demographic, financial, and health care factors associated with screening uptake in a population-based survey.

METHODS

Data from the Lung Cancer Screening Module and core modules of the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a population-based survey administered via cell phone and landline, were analyzed to examine demographic, health, and financial factors associated with screening uptake among the 10 states that administered the screening module. Weighted frequencies and confidence intervals (CIs) were produced, and weighted Wald χ² tests were used to compare differences in screening utilization by patient characteristics. A multivariate logistic mixed-effects model was constructed, in which participant clustering by state was accounted for with a random intercept.

RESULTS

The uninsured were less likely to undergo LDCT screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.65). LDCT screening uptake was higher for participants with chronic respiratory conditions (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.33-7.35); those who were divorced, separated, widowed, or refused to answer (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.86); those who had previous cancer diagnoses (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56); and those aged 65 to 69 years (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.44) or 70 to 74 years (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.37). Utilization also varied significantly across states.

CONCLUSIONS

Having a related health condition whereby participants were sensitized to the benefits of early screening (ie, another cancer diagnosis, presence of chronic respiratory conditions) and having insurance coverage were associated with higher LDCT screening uptake. Providers should engage LDCT-eligible patients through informed and shared decision making to increase preference-sensitive screening decisions.

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.

Barriers, Facilitators, and Suggested Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening Among a Rural Screening-Eligible Population

Introduction: Rural areas are disproportionally affected by lung cancer late-stage incidence and mortality. Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended to find lung cancer early and reduce mortality, yet uptake is low. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the barriers to, facilitators of, and suggested interventions for increasing LCS among a rural screening-eligible population using a mixed methods concurrent embedded design study. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from rural-residing adults who met the eligibility criteria for LCS but who were not up-to-date with LCS recommendations. Study participants (n = 23) took part in 1 of 5 focus groups and completed a survey. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded through a mixed deductive and inductive approach. Survey data were used to enhance and clarify focus group results; these data were integrated in the design and during analysis, in accordance with the mixed methods concurrent embedded design approach. Results: Several key barriers to LCS were identified, including an overall lack of knowledge about LCS, not receiving information or recommendation from a health care provider, and lack of transportation. Key facilitators were receiving a provider recommendation and high motivation to know the screening results. Participants suggested that LCS uptake could be increased by addressing provider understanding and recommendation of LCS and conducting community outreach to promote LCS awareness and access. Conclusion: The results suggest that the rural screening-eligible population is generally receptive to LCS. Patient-level factors important to getting this population screened include knowledge, transportation, motivation to know their screening results, and receiving information or recommendation from a provider. Addressing these factors may be important to increase rural LCS uptake.

Patient-centered Radiology: Overview and Opportunities in Cardiothoracic Imaging

Radiology is unique compared with most other medical specialties in that care can sometimes be delivered without speaking to or touching the patient. Although radiologists have increasingly become involved in patient safety, quality improvement, informatics, and advocacy, they must still work harder than other medical specialties to be considered "patient-facing." While cardiothoracic radiologists have likely experienced fewer opportunities to directly interface with patients, shared decision-making with patients around lung cancer screening and radiation dose optimization are both excellent examples of patient-centered and family-centered care in cardiothoracic imaging. Many cardiothoracic examinations necessitate medication administration or customized breath-holds not required of other examinations and create an opportunity for discussion between cardiothoracic radiologists and patients. Opportunities to increase the patient-centered focus in radiology exist at every interface between the radiology practice and the patient. Implementing the principles of patient-centered and family-centered care in a radiology department or practice requires the participation and engagement of all stakeholders, including patients.

Challenges of using nationally representative, population-based surveys to assess rural cancer disparities

Population-based surveys provide important information about cancer-related health behaviors across the cancer care continuum, from prevention to survivorship, to inform cancer control efforts. These surveys can illuminate cancer disparities among specific populations, including rural communities. However, due to small rural sample sizes, varying sampling methods, and/or other study design or analytical concerns, there are challenges in using population-based surveys for rural cancer control research and practice. Our objective is three-fold. First, we examined the characterization of "rural" in four, population-based surveys commonly referenced in the literature: 1) Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS); 2) National Health Interview Survey (NHIS); 3) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS); and 4) Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS). Second, we identified and described the challenges of using these surveys in rural cancer studies. Third, we proposed solutions to address these challenges. We found that these surveys varied in use of rural-urban classifications, sampling methodology, and available cancer-related variables. Further, we found that accessibility of these data to non-federal researchers has changed over time. Survey data have become restricted based on small numbers (i.e., BRFSS) and have made rural-urban measures only available for analysis at Research Data Centers (i.e., NHIS and MEPS). Additionally, studies that used these surveys reported varying proportions of rural participants with noted limitations in sufficient representation of rural minorities and/or cancer survivors. In order to mitigate these challenges, we propose two solutions: 1) make rural-urban measures more accessible to non-federal researchers and 2) implement sampling approaches to oversample rural populations.