Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in a National Commercially Insured Population: Estimating an Episode of Care

Current Challenges in Imaging-Based Cancer Screening, From the AJR Special Series on Screening

The early detection of cancer confers many significant benefits for patients, primarily by enabling less invasive and more effective treatments and thus lowering disease mortality. Radiology is integral to early cancer detection, playing either a primary or complementary role in screening programs. Imaging-based screening is often performed in conjunction with other screening tests and may involve multiple modalities depending on patient demographics and cancer type. When developing a screening program for cancer early detection, both its potential benefits and harms need to be assessed. These harms, although specific to the modality and cancer, often include overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and false-positive examinations. As radiology technology improves and new tools become available, the ratios of risk to harm of imaging-based screening will shift, and screening recommendations will need to adapt accordingly. Radiologists must be major partners in the development and execution of screening guidelines to ensure the highest quality of care for their patients. This review discusses the major challenges of cancer screening programs and guidelines, exploring sources of evidence as well as harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The article focuses on the most common cancer types that incorporate imaging-based screening including lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and hepatocellcular carcinoma.

A Multicomponent Behavior Change and Implementation Strategy to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practices: The IBREATHE Study

OBJECTIVES

Despite broader eligibility under the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, national lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake remains at around 16%. This radiologist-led study sought to identify LCS barriers in primary care settings and develop a theory-based behavior change and implementation strategy to improve screening rates in these settings.

METHODS

A multiphase approach was used, including qualitative methods and frameworks (ie, Behavior Change Wheel; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation of Behavior model; Theoretical Domains Framework; and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change glossary) to understand and address LCS barriers.

RESULTS

LCS barriers are represented by five major themes: (1) insurance pre-authorization; (2) patients' cognitive and psychosocial barriers; (3) provider-patient knowledge and communication barriers; (4) the culture of a busy primary care practice; and (5) the test is ordered, patients do not follow through. Barriers impact primary care providers' capability, opportunity, and motivation to implement guideline-concordant LCS into practice. The final multicomponent strategy (LungCheck) addressing these barriers includes educational meetings and materials, an implementation blueprint, a LCS navigator, a practical pack-year calculator, and electronic health records optimization.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a road map for using behavioral and implementation science to understand LCS barriers and design an evidence-based, theory-informed multicomponent strategy to improve LCS uptake. Our radiologist-driven strategy addresses LCS barriers in primary care, has the potential to increase screening rates, and can serve as a model for implementing similar preventive health initiatives in other settings. The multicomponent strategy will be evaluated in a pilot study with two primary care practice models.

Patient-Provider Lung Cancer Screening Discussions: An Analysis of a National Survey

BACKGROUND

The US Preventative Service Task Force (USPSTF) updated lung cancer screening (LCS) recommendations with annual low-dose CT (LDCT) in 2021. We aimed to assess prevalence of patient-provider discussion about LCS and determine its associated factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 2022 cycle 6, 2 cohorts were evaluated: (1) potentially LCS-eligible, included participants at least 50 years old with a history of smoking and no prior history of lung cancer; (2) LCS-ineligible individuals based on age (eg, 18-49 years old), smoking history (eg, never smoked), or history of lung cancer. We assessed association of demographic, clinical, and social factors with LDCT discussion in a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Among potentially LCS-eligible patients, 19% had never heard of LDCT and only 9.4% had discussed LCS with their provider within the past year. Those who accessed online patient portals were more likely to discuss LCS with their healthcare provider (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.67, 10.81; P, .003), as were respondents with a history of current (vs. former) smoking (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.21, 8.19; P, .019). Among LCS-ineligible, 1.9% discussed LCS with their providers. Individuals with a personal history of cancer (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 1.65, 27.19; P, .009), and those who discussed colorectal cancer screening (OR, 5.74; 95% CI, 1.63, 20.14; P, .007) were more likely to discuss LCS with their provider.

CONCLUSION

Despite updated USPSTF recommendations, rates of patient-provider LCS remains low. Multi-level interventions to address barriers to LCS are needed.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests: prioritizing equity from bench to bedside

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are blood-based tests designed to screen for signals of multiple cancers. There is growing interest and investment in examining the potential benefits and applications of MCED tests. If MCED tests are shown to have clinical utility, it is important to ensure that all people-regardless of their demographic or socioeconomic background-equitably benefit from these tests. Unfortunately, with health care innovation, such considerations are often ignored until after inequities emerge. We urge for-profit companies, scientists, clinicians, payers, and government agencies to prioritize equity now-when MCEDs are still being developed and researched. In an effort to avoid creating and exacerbating cancer inequities, we propose 9 equity considerations for MCEDs.

Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening in a Centralized Academic Program

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice: A 5-Year Review of Frequency and Predictors of Lung Cancer in the Screened Population

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to evaluate (1) frequency, type, and lung cancer stage in a clinical lung cancer screening (LCS) population and (2) the association between patient characteristics and Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS®) with lung cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled individuals undergoing LCS between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020. Individuals' sociodemographic characteristics, Lung-RADS scores, pathology-proven lung cancers, and tumor characteristics were determined via electronic health record and the health system's tumor registry. Associations between the outcome of lung cancer diagnosis within 1 year after LCS and covariates of sociodemographic characteristics and Lung-RADS score were determined using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3,326 individuals undergoing 5,150 LCS examinations, 102 (3.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 1 year of LCS; most of these cancers were screen detected (97 of 102 [95.1%]). Over the study period, there were 118 total LCS-detected cancers in 113 individuals (3.4%). Most LCS-detected cancers were adenocarcinomas (62 of 118 [52%]), 55.9% (65 of 118) were stage I, and 16.1% (19 of 118) were stage IV. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of Lung-RADS in diagnosing lung cancer within 1 year of LCS were 93.1%, 83.8%, 10.6%, and 99.8%, respectively. On multivariable analysis controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, only Lung-RADS score was associated with lung cancer (odds ratio for a one-unit increase in Lung-RADS score, 4.68; 95% confidence interval, 3.87-5.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of LCS-detected lung cancer and stage IV cancers was higher than reported in the National Lung Screening Trial. Although Lung-RADS was a significant predictor of lung cancer, the positive predictive value of Lung-RADS is relatively low, implying opportunity for improved nodule classification.

Social Determinants of Health in Imaging-based Cancer Screening: A Case-based Primer with Strategies for Care Improvement

Health disparities, preventable differences in the burden of disease and disease outcomes often experienced by socially disadvantaged populations, can be found in nearly all areas of radiology, including emergency radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, image-guided interventions, and imaging-based cancer screening. Disparities in imaging-based cancer screening are especially noteworthy given the far-reaching population health impact. The social determinants of health (SDoH) play an important role in disparities in cancer screening and outcomes. Through improved understanding of how SDoH can drive differences in health outcomes in radiology, radiologists can effectively provide patient-centered, high-quality, and equitable care. Radiologists and radiology practices can become active partners in efforts to assist patients along their imaging journey and overcome existing barriers to equitable cancer screening care for traditionally marginalized populations. As radiology exists at the intersection of diagnostic imaging, image-guided diagnostic intervention, and image-guided treatment, radiologists are uniquely positioned to design these strategies. Cost-effective and socially conscious strategies that address barriers to equitable care can improve both public health and equitable health outcomes. Potential strategies include championing supportive health policy, reducing out-of-pocket costs, increasing price transparency, improving education and outreach efforts, ensuring that appropriate language translation services are available, providing individualized assistance with appointment scheduling, and offering transportation assistance and childcare. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

The Impact of Downstream Procedures on Lung Cancer Screening Adherence

OBJECTIVE

(1) Evaluate downstream procedures after lung cancer screening (LCS), including imaging and invasive procedures, in screened individuals without screen-detected lung cancer. (2) Determine the association between repeat LCS and downstream procedures and patient characteristics.

METHODS

Individuals receiving LCS between January 1, 2015, and November 30, 2020, from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database were included. Individuals with lung cancer after LCS were excluded. We determined frequency and costs of downstream procedures after LCS, including diagnostic imaging (chest CT, PET, or CT using fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging) and invasive procedures (bronchoscopy, needle biopsy, thoracic surgery). A generalized estimating equation was used to model repeat LCS as a function of downstream procedures and patient characteristics. The primary outcome was repeat screening within 1 year of index LCS, and a secondary analysis evaluated the outcome of repeat screening with 2 years of index LCS.

RESULTS

In all, 23,640 individuals receiving 30,521 LCS examinations were included in the primary analysis; 17.7% of LCS examinations (5,414 of 30,521) prompted downstream testing, with chest CT within 4 months being most common (9.1%, 2,769 of 30,521). At multivariable analysis adjusted for patient characteristics, the occurrence of a downstream diagnostic imaging test or invasive procedure was associated with a decreased likelihood of repeat annual LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.38, 0.34-0.44; adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.63-0.90, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Downstream imaging and invasive procedures after LCS are potential barriers to LCS adherence. Efforts to reduce false-positives at LCS and reduce patient costs from downstream procedures are likely necessary to ensure that downstream workup after LCS does not discourage screening adherence.

Utilization of Diagnostic Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine utilization patterns of diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening among participants enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial.

METHODS

Using a sample of National Lung Screening Trial participants with abstracted medical records, we assessed utilization of imaging, invasive, and surgical procedures after lung cancer screening. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. For each procedure type, we examined utilization within a year after the screening or until the next screen, whichever came first, across arms (low-dose CT [LDCT] versus chest X-ray [CXR]) and by screening results. We also explored factors associated with having these procedures using multivariable negative binomial regressions.

RESULTS

After baseline screening, our sample had 176.5 and 46.7 procedures per 100 person-years for those with a false-positive and negative result, respectively. Invasive and surgical procedures were relatively infrequent. Among those who screened positive, follow-up imaging and invasive procedures were 25% and 34% less frequent in those screened with LDCT, compared with CXR. Postscreening utilization of invasive and surgical procedures was 37% and 34% lower at the first incidence screen compared with baseline. Participants with positive results at baseline were six times more likely to undergo additional imaging than those with normal findings.

DISCUSSION

Use of imaging and invasive procedures to evaluate abnormal findings varied by screening modality, with a lower rate for LDCT than CXR. Invasive and surgical workup were less prevalent after subsequent screening examinations compared with baseline screening. Utilization was associated with older age but not gender, race or ethnicity, insurance status, or income.

Clinical Impact and Generalizability of a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Tool to Risk-Stratify Lung Nodules With CT

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether an imaging classifier for radiology practice can improve lung nodule classification and follow-up.

METHODS

A machine learning classifier was developed and trained using imaging data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NSLT) to produce a malignancy risk score (malignancy Similarity Index [mSI]) for individual lung nodules. In addition to NLST cohorts, external cohorts were developed from a tertiary referral lung cancer screening program data set and an external nonscreening data set of all nodules detected on CT. Performance of the mSI combined with Lung-RADS was compared with Lung-RADS alone and the Mayo and Brock risk calculators.

RESULTS

We analyzed 963 subjects and 1,331 nodules across these cohorts. The mSI was comparable in accuracy (area under the curve = 0.89) to existing clinical risk models (area under the curve = 0.86-0.88) and independently predictive in the NLST cohort of 704 nodules. When compared with Lung-RADS, the mSI significantly increased sensitivity across all cohorts (25%-117%), with significant increases in specificity in the screening cohorts (17%-33%). When used in conjunction with Lung-RADS, use of mSI would result in earlier diagnoses and reduced follow-up across cohorts, including the potential for early diagnosis in 42% of malignant NLST nodules from prior-year CT scans.

CONCLUSION

A computer-assisted diagnosis software improved risk classification from chest CTs of screening and incidentally detected lung nodules compared with Lung-RADS. mSI added predictive value independent of existing radiological and clinical variables. These results suggest the generalizability and potential clinical impact of a tool that is straightforward to implement in practice.

Repeat Annual Lung Cancer Screening After Baseline Screening Among Screen-Negative Individuals: No-Cost Coverage Is Not Enough

PURPOSE

Adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) is central to effective screening. The authors evaluated the likelihood of repeat annual LCS in a national commercially insured population and associations with individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and annual out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) burden.

METHODS

Using claims data from an employer-insured population (Clinformatics), individuals 55 to 80 years of age undergoing LCS between January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2019, with "negative" LCS were included. Repeat LCS was defined as low-dose chest CT occurring 10 to 15 months after the preceding LCS. Analysis was conducted over a 6-year period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between repeat LCS and individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and total OOPC incurred by the individual in the year of the index LCS, even if unrelated to LCS.

RESULTS

Of 14,943 individuals with negative LCS, 4,561 (30.5%) underwent repeat LCS. Likelihood of repeat LCS was decreased for men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.97), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), and indemnity insurance plans (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.53). Relative to New England, individuals in nearly all US geographic regions were less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Finally, individuals with total OOPC in the highest two quartiles were less likely to undergo repeat LCS (aOR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92] for OOPC >$1,069.02-$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.68-0.82] for OOPC >$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Although federal policies facilitate LCS without cost sharing, individuals incurring high OOPC, even when unrelated to LCS, are less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Future policy design should consider the permeative burden of OOPC across the health continuum on preventive services use.

Detection of early-stage lung cancer in sputum using automated flow cytometry and machine learning

BACKGROUND

Low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) may not lead to a clear treatment path when small to intermediate-sized lung nodules are identified. We have combined flow cytometry and machine learning to develop a sputum-based test (CyPath Lung) that can assist physicians in decision-making in such cases.

METHODS

Single cell suspensions prepared from induced sputum samples collected over three consecutive days were labeled with a viability dye to exclude dead cells, antibodies to distinguish cell types, and a porphyrin to label cancer-associated cells. The labeled cell suspension was run on a flow cytometer and the data collected. An analysis pipeline combining automated flow cytometry data processing with machine learning was developed to distinguish cancer from non-cancer samples from 150 patients at high risk of whom 28 had lung cancer. Flow data and patient features were evaluated to identify predictors of lung cancer. Random training and test sets were chosen to evaluate predictive variables iteratively until a robust model was identified. The final model was tested on a second, independent group of 32 samples, including six samples from patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

RESULTS

Automated analysis combined with machine learning resulted in a predictive model that achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.89). The sensitivity and specificity were 82% and 88%, respectively, and the negative and positive predictive values 96% and 61%, respectively. Importantly, the test was 92% sensitive and 87% specific in cases when nodules were < 20 mm (AUC of 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99). Testing of the model on an independent second set of samples showed an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-0.98) with an 83% sensitivity, 77% specificity, 95% negative predictive value and 45% positive predictive value. The model is robust to differences in sample processing and disease state.

CONCLUSION

CyPath Lung correctly classifies samples as cancer or non-cancer with high accuracy, including from participants at different disease stages and with nodules < 20 mm in diameter. This test is intended for use after lung cancer screening to improve early-stage lung cancer diagnosis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03457415; March 7, 2018.

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.

Impact of Health Care-Associated Cost Concerns on Mammography Utilization: Cross-Sectional Survey Results From the National Health Interview Survey

PURPOSE

Health care-related cost concerns and financial toxicity are increasingly recognized barriers along the breast cancer care continuum. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between patient-reported cost concerns and screening mammography utilization.

METHODS

Survey participants aged 40 to 74 years from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey without personal history of breast cancer were included (response rate: 64%). Respondents were queried if they had experienced specific access-related health care barriers. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between barriers to care and patient-reported screening mammography utilization.

RESULTS

Of survey respondents, 7,511 women were included. Of this group, 68.9% reported receiving a screening mammogram within the last 2 years and 52.2% reported receiving a screening mammogram within the last year. Of all survey respondents, 48.4% reported worry paying medical bills. Patients who reported worry about paying medical bills (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.97; P = .01), challenges affording dental care (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.54-0.77; P < .01), and challenges affording eyeglasses (OR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84; P < .01) were less likely to report screening mammography use than their respective counterparts. Patients who skipped medication doses (OR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.91; P < .01), took less medication, (OR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48-0.82; P < .01), and delayed filling prescriptions (OR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.56-0.90; P < .01) to save money were also less likely to report receiving mammography screening.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported cost-related barriers are associated with decreased utilization of routine mammography.