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

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.

Money Matters: The Effect of Income on Postsurgical Outcomes in Stage IA Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains challenging; 5-year survival is as low as 24% for resectable disease. However, the outlook for stage IA NSCLC is favorable, with 5-year survival exceeding 74% and with surgery often being curative. Despite this positive prognosis, low socioeconomic status has been shown to correlate with nonstandard treatment and worse overall survival specifically in stage IA. This study sought to examine income-based disparities in postsurgical survival which has yet to be discussed in the current literature.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was retrospectively queried from 2004 to 2017 to identify patients with pathological stage IA NSCLC following surgical resection; survival/patient characteristics were analyzed by income quartiles and eras (2004-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2017). Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox hazard modeling were used to estimate survival and construct hazard ratios, respectively.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 138,219 patients. Overall, a stepwise decrease in 5-year survival was observed as income quartile decreased (Q4: 72.0%; Q3: 67.8%; Q2: 66.1%; Q1: 64.2%). Hazard modeling implicated income level as an independent predictor of mortality; patients of the lowest income quartile exhibited a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.21-1.31; p < 0.001) relative to the highest. Although overall survival increased within each income quartile over consecutive eras, income-based survival disparities continued to be observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower-income patients with stage IA NSCLC display elevated mortality risk over 5 years than higher-income patients despite receiving potentially curative surgery, with income being an independent risk-factor. This difference may also be attributed to stacked risk-factors in lower-income patients.

Lung Cancer Screening Uptake under the Revised United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline: Assessing Disparities

BACKGROUND

Scanning with low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality by 20% among high-risk individuals. Despite its efficacy, the uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) remains low. Our study aimed to estimate state-level and nationwide LCS rates among eligible individuals and to assess disparities in LCS uptake.

METHODS

Data for this study were obtained from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to model the associations between predictors and outcome variables and to examine LCS variability across states.

RESULTS

Of the 28,071 participants eligible for LCS, 17.24% underwent LCS. Participants ages 65 to 79 years were [OR, 1.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.54-1.99] more likely to undergo LCS than their younger counterparts. Those who were female (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.94); divorced, separated, or widowed (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98); without health insurance (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.53); without a primary care provider (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44); and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or those who did not disclose their chronic obstructive pulmonary disease status (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.31-0.40 and OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.73, respectively) were less likely to undergo LCS than their respective counterparts. LCS uptake also varied significantly across U.S. states.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a low uptake of LCS overall and significant variability in LCS uptake by sociodemographic and health-related factors, as well as by state of residence.

IMPACT

The findings from this study have important implications for community health workers and healthcare clinicians and indicate the need to design effective interventions to increase LCS uptake, targeting specific subgroups of populations and particular U.S. states. See related In the Spotlight, p. 9.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Lung cancer in women

Lung cancer in women is a modern epidemic and represents a global health crisis. Cigarette smoking remains the most important risk factor for lung cancer in all patients and, among women globally, rates of smoking continue to increase. Although some data exist supporting sex-based differences across the continuum of lung cancer, there is currently a dearth of research exploring the differences in risk, biology, and treatment outcomes in women. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable recognizes the urgent need to promote awareness and future research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women. To this end, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Task Group on Lung Cancer in Women convened a summit undertaking the following to: (1) summarize existing evidence and identify knowledge gaps surrounding the epidemiology, risk factors, biologic differences, and outcomes of lung cancer in women; (2) develop and prioritize research topics and questions that address research gaps and advance knowledge to improve quality of care of lung cancer in women; and (3) propose strategies for future research. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in women, and, despite comparatively lower exposures to occupational and environmental carcinogens compared with men, disproportionately higher lung cancer rates in women who ever smoked and women who never smoked call for increased awareness and research that will close the knowledge gaps regarding lung cancer in women.

The risk and benefit profiles of US-eligible lung cancer screening attendees vs nonattendees

BACKGROUND

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years and no more than 15 quit-years, but uptake is low. The risk and benefit profiles of screening attendees are unknown; consequently, the impact and lost opportunity of ongoing lung cancer screening in the United States remains unclear.

METHODS

We estimated lung cancer death risk (using the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool) and life gained from screening (using the Life Years Gained From Screening-Computed Tomography model) for individuals aged 50-79 years who ever-smoked in the US representative 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We compared lung cancer death risk and life gained among USPSTF-eligible individuals by screening status (self-reported screened vs not screened in past year) and estimated the number of lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained under current screening levels and if everyone eligible was screened.

RESULTS

USPSTF eligibility was 33.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33.1% to 34.4%), of whom 17.9% (95% CI = 17.0% to 18.8%) self-reported screening. Screening uptake increased with increasing lung cancer death risk quintile (Q1 = 5.2%, 95% CI = 3.0% to 8.8%; Q5 = 21.8%, 95% CI = 20.3% to 23.3%) and life-gain from screening quintile (Q1 = 6.2%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 9.9%; Q5 = 20.8%, 95% CI = 19.5% to 22.2%). Screened individuals had higher lung cancer death risk (risk ratio [RR] = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.46) and life-years gained (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.25) than unscreened individuals. Currently, screening averts 19 306 lung cancer deaths and gains 237 564 life-years; screening everyone eligible would additionally avert 56 956 lung cancer deaths and gain 751 850 life-years. Two-thirds of USPSTF lung-eligible women were up to date with breast cancer screening, but only 17.3% attended lung screening in the past year.

CONCLUSIONS

Eligible screening attendees had higher lung cancer death risk and benefit from screening. Higher rates of screening could substantially increase the number of lung cancer deaths prevented.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and across the world. The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) was established in 2017 as a consortium of public, private, and voluntary organizations with a mission to lower the impact of lung cancer via prevention, early detection, and optimal therapy. The ACS NLCRT supports a comprehensive scope of work that covers the lung cancer continuum, from risk reduction, tobacco prevention and control, and early detection (screening and incidental lung nodule management) to guideline-based staging, biomarker testing, treatment, and survivorship and overarching issues such as stigma and nihilism, health equity, and tactical approaches such as state coalition efforts and policy initiatives. Applying a multidimensional and multisector approach, over 220 public, private, and government agency member organizations and 250 volunteer experts, patients, and caregiver advocate representatives collaborate to address challenges across the lung cancer continuum by catalyzing action to conceive, build, and strengthen innovative solutions. The wide-ranging membership allows the ACS NLCRT to harness the collective power and expertise of the entire lung cancer community by connecting leaders, communities, and systems to improve equity and access. These national, state, and local relationships provide partnerships for the dissemination of ACS NLCRT-developed tools and resources. This article describes the ACS NLCRT and introduces the series of accompanying and future articles that together make up the ACS NLCRT strategic plan, which provides a roadmap for future research, investment, and collaboration to reduce lung cancer mortality and lung cancer-related stigma and enhance survivorship.

Estimating the Impact of Asthma and COPD on Lung Cancer Screening in the USA

OBJECTIVES

Examine the association of asthma, COPD, and Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) on rates of lung cancer screening.

METHODS

2022 Behavior and Risk Factors Surveillance Survey was used for cross-sectional analysis of self-reported lung cancer screening prevalence in those with COPD, asthma, and ACO, with stratification by smoking status. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between asthma, COPD, ACO and lung cancer screening status.

RESULTS

17.9% of eligible adults were up-to-date on lung cancer screening. Those with COPD and ACO had higher rates of ever undergoing lung cancer screening (50.8% and 47.5%) than those with asthma (26.4%) or neither condition (23%). Adults with COPD (adjusted odds ratios (aOR): 2.86, 95% CI 2.49-3.28) and ACO (aOR: 2.85, 95% CI 2.49-3.28) had increased odds of ever having lung cancer screening compared with those without either condition. Stratification by smoking status shows that individuals who formerly smoked had slightly higher odds of ever undergoing screening than individuals currently smoking.

CONCLUSION

Lung cancer screening rates have increased; however, it remains low. Adults with COPD and ACO are more likely to undergo lung cancer screening.

Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations

PURPOSE

In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised their 2013 recommendations for lung cancer screening eligibility by lowering the pack-year history from 30+ to 20+ pack-years and the recommended age from 55 to 50 years. Simulation studies suggest that Black persons and females will benefit most from these changes, but it is unclear how the revised USPSTF recommendations will impact geographic, health-related, and other sociodemographic characteristics of those eligible.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study employed data from the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys from 23 states to compare age, gender, race, marital, sexual orientation, education, employment, comorbidity, vaccination, region, and rurality characteristics of the eligible population according to the original 2013 USPSTF recommendations with the revised 2021 USPSTF recommendations using chi-squared tests. This study compared those originally eligible to those newly eligible using the BRFSS raking-dervived weighting variable.

RESULTS

There were 30,190 study participants. The results of this study found that eligibility increased by 62.4% due to the revised recommendations. We found that the recommendation changes increased the proportion of eligible females (50.1% vs 44.1%), Black persons (9.2% vs 6.6%), Hispanic persons (4.4% vs 2.7%), persons aged 55-64 (55.8% vs 52.6%), urban-dwellers(88.3% vs 85.9%), unmarried (3.4% vs 2.5%) and never married (10.4% vs 6.6%) persons, as well as non-retirees (76.5% vs 56.1%) Respondents without comorbidities and COPD also increased.

CONCLUSION

It is estimated that the revision of the lung cancer screening recommendations decreased eligibility disparities in sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, respiratory comorbidities, and vaccination status. Research will be necessary to estimate whether uptake patterns subsequently follow the expanded eligibility patterns.

Factors Associated With Margin Positivity After Lung Resection Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to utilize a representative national sample to investigate the factors associated with margin positivity after attempted surgical resection. Given the changes in surgical approaches to lung cancer for the last 10 years, margin positivity and outcomes between robotic, video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and open surgical resections may vary.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Database. Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, 18 or older and who had a surgical lung resection between 2010 and 2019 were included. Demographic data, along with patient-level clinical variables were extracted. Patient-level outcome variables including 30-day, 90-day mortality and readmission rates were analyzed. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was utilized to assess factors associated with margin positivity.

RESULTS

A total of 226,884 patients were identified. Of the total cohort, 9229 had positive margins (4.2%). Patients with positive margins had statistically significant increased 30-day, 90-day mortality, as well as increased readmission rate. Older age, male sex, patients undergoing an open resection, patients who underwent a wedge resection, higher clinical stage, larger tumor size, squamous and adenosquamous histologies, and higher Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index were all associated with having a positive margin after resection.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there was no difference in margin positivity when comparing robotic and VATS resection, however, open resection had increased rates of margin positivity. Increasing tumor size, clinical stage, squamous and adenosquamous histologies, male sex, and patients undergoing a wedge resection were all associated with increased rates of margin positivity.

Factors influencing the intention for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations for lung cancer

Objective

Utilizing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening has proven effective in reducing lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals. This study aimed to investigate the health beliefs, knowledge of lung cancer, and cancer prevention behaviors in adults at high risk for lung cancer, with the goal of identifying predictors influencing their intention to undergo lung cancer screening.

Methods

The study utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design. Online questionnaires, including assessments of lung cancer screening health beliefs, knowledge of lung cancer, cancer prevention behaviors, intention to undergo lung cancer screening, and participant characteristics, were distributed to 186 individuals at high risk of lung cancer through a survey link. The data collection period spanned from April 26 to May 3, 2023. Analytical procedures encompassed descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson's correlations, and hierarchical multiple regression.

Results

The mean score for the intention to undergo lung cancer screening in our study was 3.66 out of 5. The regression model explaining the intention to undergo lung cancer screening accounted for 34.7% of the variance. Significant factors identified included stress level (β = 0.20, P = 0.002), perceived risk (β = 0.13, P = 0.040), self-efficacy (β = 0.35, P < 0.001), and engagement in cancer prevention behavior (β = 0.26, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Healthcare providers should implement psychological interventions and provide education about cancer screening for high-risk individuals, aiming to enhance their perceived risk and self-efficacy, thus promoting a higher likelihood of undergoing screening.

Interrelated feature selection from health surveys using domain knowledge graph

Finding patterns among risk factors and chronic illness can suggest similar causes, provide guidance to improve healthy lifestyles, and give clues for possible treatments for outliers. Prior studies have typically isolated data challenges from single-disease datasets. However, the predictive power of multiple diseases is more helpful in establishing a healthy lifestyle than investigating one disease. Most studies typically focus on single-disease datasets; however, to ensure that health advice is generalized and contemporary, the features that predict the likelihood of many diseases can improve health advice effectiveness when considering the patient's point of view. We construct and present a novel knowledge-based qualitative method to remove redundant features from a dataset and redefine the outliers. The results of our trials upon five annual chronic disease health surveys demonstrate that our Knowledge Graph-based feature selection, when applied to many machine learning and deep learning multi-label classifiers, can improve classification performance. Our methodology is compatible with future directions, such as graph neural networks. It provides clinicians with an efficient process to select the most relevant health survey questions and responses regarding single or many human organ systems.

Results from Lung Cancer Screening Outreach Utilizing a Mobile CT Scanner in an Urban Area

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening using low-dose (LD) CT reduces lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality in high-risk individuals, although significant barriers to screening remain. We assessed the outreach of a mobile lung cancer screening program to increase screening accessibility and early detection of lung cancer.

METHODS

We placed a mobile CT unit in a high-traffic area in New York City and offered free screening to all eligible patients. Characteristics of the mobile screening cohort were compared with those of our hospital-based screening cohort.

RESULTS

Between December 9, 2019, and January 30, 2020, a total of 216 patients underwent mobile LDCT screening. Compared with the hospital-based screening cohort, mobile screening participants were significantly more likely to be younger, be uninsured, and have lower smoking intensity and were less likely to meet 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines (but would meet their 2021 guidelines) and self-identify as White race and Hispanic ethnicity. Asian New Yorkers were substantially underrepresented in both hospital and mobile screening cohorts, compared with their level of representation in New York City. Two patients were diagnosed with lung cancer and were treated. Potentially clinically significant non-lung cancer findings were identified in 28.2%, most commonly moderate-severe coronary artery calcification and emphysema.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile LDCT screening is useful and effective in detecting lung cancer and other significant findings and may engage a distinct high-risk patient demographic. Disproportionately low screening rates among certain high-risk populations highlight the imperative of implementing strategies aimed at understanding health behaviors and access barriers for diverse populations. Effective care-navigation services, facilitating high-quality care for all patients, are critical.

Developing a pan-European technical standard for a comprehensive high-quality lung cancer computed tomography screening programme: an ERS technical standard

BACKGROUND

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening (LCS) be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost-effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality LCS programme.

METHOD

A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies. Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee.

RESULTS

Topics were identified representing key components of a screening programme. The actions on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked ERS Task Force (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). 56 statements were produced and areas for further research identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high-quality and effective programme.

Lung Cancer Screening Among U.S. Military Veterans by Health Status and Race and Ethnicity, 2017-2020: A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study

Introduction

Veterans are at high risk for lung cancer and are an important group for lung cancer screening. Previous research suggests that lung cancer screening may not be reaching healthier and/or non-White individuals, who stand to benefit most from lung cancer screening. We sought to test whether lung cancer screening is associated with poor health and/or race and ethnicity among veterans.

Methods

This cross-sectional, population-based study included veterans eligible for lung cancer screening (aged 55-79 years, ≥30 pack-year smoking history, current smokers or quit within 15 years, no previous lung cancer) in the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. Exposures were (1) poor health, defined as fair/poor health status and difficulty walking or climbing stairs, aligning with eligibility criteria for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial, and (2) race/ethnicity. The outcome was a receipt of lung cancer screening. All variables were self-reported.

Results

Of 3,376 lung cancer screening-eligible veterans representing an underlying population of 866,000 individuals, 20.3% (95% CI=17.3, 23.6) had poor health, and 13.7% (95% CI=10.6, 17.5) identified as non-White. Poor health was strongly associated with lung cancer screening (adjusted RR=1.64, 95% CI=1.06, 2.27); one third of veterans screened for lung cancer would not qualify for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial in terms of health. Marked racial disparities were observed among veterans: after adjustment, non-White veterans were 67% less likely to report lung cancer screening than White veterans (adjusted RR=0.33, 95% CI=0.11, 0.66).

Conclusions

Lung cancer screening is correlated with poorer health and White race/ethnicity among veterans, which may undermine its population-level effectiveness. These results highlight the need to promote lung cancer screening, especially for healthier and/or non-White veterans, an important group of Americans for lung cancer screening.

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.

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.

Trends in Stage I Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The American Cancer Society has recently reported an increase in the percentage of patients with localized lung cancer from 2004 to 2018, coinciding with the initial lung cancer screening guidelines issued in 2013. We conducted a National Cancer Database (NCDB) study to further evaluate the trends in stage I according to patient and tumor characteristics.

METHODS

We selected patients with lung cancer from the NCDB Public Benchmark Report diagnosed between 2010 and 2017. Patients with stages I to IV according to the AJCC seventh edition were evaluated according to the year of diagnosis, histology, age, sex, race, and insurance.

RESULTS

Among the 1,447,470 patients identified in the database, 56,382 (3.9%) were excluded due to stage 0 or unknown, or incorrect histology, leaving 1,391,088 patients eligible. The percentage of patients with stage I increased from 23.5% in 2010 to 29.1% in 2017 for all lung cancers, from 25.9% to 31.8% in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and from 5.0% to 5.4% in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients younger than 70 years, males and blacks had lower percentages of stage I compared to older patients, females, and nonblacks respectively. Patients with no insurance had the lowest percentage of stage I.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a significant increase in the percentage of stage I lung cancer at diagnosis from 2010 to 2017, which occurred mostly in NSCLC. Although the staging shift was observed in all subsets of patients, there were noticeable imbalances according to demographic factors.

Qualitative Findings From a Survey on Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

To reveal successes and potential limitations of the lung cancer screening program, we conducted a survey that included both quantitative and open-ended questions to measure patient experiences and satisfaction with screening.

METHODS

We report on the five open-ended items related to barriers to returning for screening, experience with other cancer prevention screenings, positive and negative experiences, and suggestions for improving future appointments. The open-ended responses were analyzed using constant comparison method and inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents (182 patients, 86% response rate for open-ended questions) provided generally positive comments about their lung cancer screening experience. Negative comments were related to desire for more information about results, long wait times for results, and billing issues. Suggestions for improvements included: scheduling on-line appointments and text or email reminders, lower costs, and responding to uncertainty about eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSION

Findings provide insights about patient experiences and satisfaction with lung cancer screening which is important given low uptake. Ongoing patient-centered feedback may improve the lung cancer screening experience and increase follow-up screening rates.

Evidence of Racial Disparities in the Lung Cancer Screening Process: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality, with greater reduction observed in Black participants in clinical trials. While racial disparities in lung cancer mortality exist, less is known about disparities in LCS participation. We conducted a systematic review to explore LCS participation in Black compared with White patients in the USA.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted through a search of published studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied-Health Literature Database, from database inception through October 2020. We included studies that examined rates of LCS participation and compared rates by race. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We screened 18,300 titles/abstracts; 229 studies were selected for full-text review, of which nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into 2 groups: studies that reported the screening rate among an LCS-eligible patient population, and studies that reported the screening rate among a patient population referred for LCS. Median LCS participation rates were 14.4% (range 1.7 to 62.6%) for eligible patient studies and 68.5% (range 62.6 to 88.8%) for referred patient studies. The meta-analyses showed screening rates were lower in the Black compared to White population among the LCS-eligible patient studies ([OR]=0.43, [95% CI: 0.25, 0.74]). However, screening rates were the same between Black and White patients in the referred patient studies (OR=0.94, [95% CI: 0.74, 1.19]).

DISCUSSION

Black LCS-eligible patients are being screened at a lower rate than White patients but have similar rates of participation once referred. Differences in referrals by providers may contribute to the racial disparity in LCS participation. More studies are needed to identify barriers to LCS referral and develop interventions to increase provider awareness of the importance of LCS in Black patients. Trial Registry PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020214213; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

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.

Carboxypeptidase N2 as a Novel Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Lung Adenocarcinoma

Carboxypeptidase N2 (CPN2) is a plasma metallo-protease that cleaves basic amino acids from the C-terminal of peptides and proteins. Emerging evidence showed that carboxypeptidases perform many diverse functions in the body and play key roles in tumorigenesis. However, the clinical significance and biological functions of CPN2 in lung adenocarcinoma remain unclear. Our study aimed to explore the potential role and functions of CPN2 in lung adenocarcinoma. The results showed that the transcription level of CPN2 was significantly increased in the tumor tissues of lung adenocarcinoma patients compared to the adjacent normal tissues in The Cancer Genome Atlas cohort (P < 0.05). The survival plots showed that the overall survival of patients with a high expression of CPN2 was significantly lower than that of patients with a low expression of CPN2, both in the Kaplan-Meier database and the clinical sample cohort (P < 0.05). The tissue microarray analysis found that CPN2 protein expression was significantly positively correlated with node status and tumor stage as well as tumor malignancy (P < 0.05). Further univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that CPN2 may act as an independent prognostic factor in patients with lung adenocarcinoma (P < 0.05). In addition, the analysis of co-expression genes from LinkedOmics showed that CPN2 was positively associated with many genes of fibrillar collagen family members and the PI3K-Akt pathway. The gene set enrichment analysis showed that a higher expression of CPN2 may participate in mTOR, TGF-BETA, NOTCH, TOLL-like-receptor, WNT, and MAPK signaling pathway in lung adenocarcinoma. Notably, the knockdown of CPN2 significantly inhibited the ability of cell proliferation, clone formation, invasion, and migration. Our findings suggested that the upregulation of CPN2 is associated with a worse clinical outcome in lung adenocarcinoma and cancer-related pathways, which laid the foundation for further research on CPN2 during carcinogenesis.

Likelihood of Lung Cancer Screening by Poor Health Status and Race and Ethnicity in US Adults, 2017 to 2020

Importance

Lung cancer screening (LCS) via low-dose chest computed tomography can prevent mortality through surgical resection of early-stage cancers, but it is unknown whether poor health is associated with screening. Though LCS may be associated with better outcomes for non-Hispanic Black individuals, it is unknown whether racial or ethnic disparities exist in LCS use.

Objective

To determine whether health status is associated with LCS and whether racial or ethnic disparities are associated with LCS independently of health status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional, population-based study of community-dwelling US adults used data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System annual surveys, 2017 to 2020. Participants were aged 55 to 79 years, with a less than 30 pack-year smoking history, and were current smokers or those who quit within 15 years. Data were analyzed from August to November 2021.

Exposures

Self-reported health status and race and ethnicity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Self-reported LCS in the last 12 months.

Results

Of 14 550 individuals (7802 men [55.5%]; 7527 [55.0%] aged 65-79 years [percentages are weighted]), representing 3.68 million US residents, 17.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-18.9%) reported undergoing LCS. The prevalence of LCS was lower among non-Hispanic Black than non-Hispanic White individuals but not to a significant degree (12.0% [95% CI, 4.3%-19.7%] vs 17.5% [95% CI, 15.6%-19.5%]; P = .57). Health status was associated with LCS: 468 individuals in poor health vs 96 individuals in excellent health reported LCS (25.2% [95% CI, 20.6%-29.9%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.3%]; P < .001), and those with difficulty climbing stairs were more likely to report LCS than those without this functional limitation. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, functional status, and comorbidities, self-rated health status remained associated with LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 per each 1-step decline in health; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), and non-Hispanic Black individuals were 53% less likely to report LCS than non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses in which health was alternatively quantified as number of comorbidities.

Conclusions and Relevance

LCS in the US is more common among those who may be less likely to benefit from screening because of poor underlying health. Furthermore, racial or ethnic disparities were evident after accounting for health status, with non-Hispanic Black individuals nearly half as likely as non-Hispanic White individuals to report LCS despite the potential for greater benefit of screening this population.

Examination of the Association Between Access to Care and Lung Cancer Screening Among High-Risk Smokers

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of access to care on the uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among a diverse sample of screening-eligible patients. Methods: We utilized a cross-sectional study design. Our sample included patients evaluated for lung cancer screening at a large academic medical center (AMC) between 2015 and 2017 who met 2013 USPSTF guidelines for LDCT screening eligibility. The completion of LDCT screening (yes, no) was the primary dependent variable. The independent variable was access to care (insurance type, living within the AMC service area). We utilized binary logistic regression analyses to examine the influence of access to care on screening completion after adjusting for demographic factors (age, sex, race) and smoking history (current smoking status, smoking pack-year history). Results: A total of 1,355 individuals met LDCT eligibility criteria, and of those, 29.8% (n = 404) completed screening. Regression analysis results showed individuals with Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22), individuals living within the AMC service area (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.21-2.40), and those aged 65-74 years (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98) had higher odds of receiving LDCT lung cancer screening. Lower odds of screening were associated with having Medicare insurance (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.41) and out-of-pocket (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.47). Conclusion: Access to care was independently associated with lowered screening rates. Study results are consistent with prior research identifying the importance of access factors on uptake of cancer early detection screening behaviors.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

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.

Narrative review of socioeconomic and racial disparities in the treatment of early stage lung cancer

Background

To review and discuss the current literature regarding socio-economic and racial disparities in the treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Narrative review of peer reviewed literature synthesizing findings retrieved from searches of computerized databases, primary article reference lists, authoritative texts and expert options.

Results

The current incidence of lung cancer appears to be similar between White and Black patients. However, Black patients are substantially less likely to receive curative intent surgery. Mitigation strategies do exist to narrow this inequity. Lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher incidence of lung cancer, lower utilization of surgery and poorer outcomes after surgery.

Conclusions

Race and SES remain closely linked to outcomes in lung cancer. Outcomes are still worse when controlling for stage and specifically, in early-stage disease, surgical therapy is consistently underused in Black patients and patients of low SES.

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.

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.