Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication

Impact of single round of low dose CT lung cancer screening on cause of mortality in different socio-economic groups: a post-hoc analysis of long-term follow-up of the UKLS trial

Background

Lower socioeconomic status, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), is associated with higher rates of smoking-related disease mortality, and with poor uptake of cancer screening. Here we explore whether socioeconomic status impacts the effectiveness of a single round of low-dose-CT screening, or impacts other causes of death, in the UKLS LDCT screening trial.

Methods

IMD quintiles were defined according to UK-wide data, with the deprived group defined as the lower two quintiles (Q1-2) and the less deprived as Q3-5. Follow-up data was obtained for lung cancer diagnosis (median follow-up 9.1 years) and cause of death (median follow-up 9.9 years). Outcomes were compared based on IMD group and trial arm (CT or control).

Findings

More deprived quintiles were less likely to respond to the questionnaire, but this population was more likely to be selected for screening by the LLP risk model. Lower IMD quintiles benefitted from low-dose-CT screening in terms of lung cancer survival (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.16-3.08) to the same extent as upper quintiles (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.26). However, there was a bigger impact on deaths due to COPD and emphysema in more deprived quintiles.

Interpretation

Whilst LDCT screening benefit for lung cancer was similar, significant impact on the rates of death from other smoking-related diseases, notably COPD and emphysema, was seen primarily in lower socioeconomic groups. Future research is required to confirm how lung cancer screening benefits other disease outcomes.

Funding

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Facilitators and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening during Long COVID: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Study Synthesis of Qualitative Research

Background: Participation in targeted screening reduces lung cancer mortality by 30-60%, but screening is not universally available. Therefore, the study aimed to synthesize the evidence and identify facilitators and barriers to lung cancer screening participation globally. Methods: Two reviewers screened primary studies using qualitative methods published up to February 2023. We used two-phase synthesis consistent with a meta-study methodology to create an interpretation of lung cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies, carried out a thematic analysis of group themes as specific facilitators and barriers, systematically compared investigations for similarities and differences, and performed meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of lung cancer screening participation. We used the Social Ecological Model to organize and interpret the themes: individual, interpersonal, social/cultural, and organizational/structural levels. Results: Fifty-two articles met the final inclusion criteria. Themes identified as facilitating lung cancer screening included prioritizing patient education, quality of communication, and quality of provider-initiated encounter/coordination of care (individual patient and provider level), quality of the patient-provider relationship (interpersonal group), perception of a life's value and purpose (cultural status), quality of tools designed, and care coordination (and organizational level). Themes coded as barriers included low awareness, fear of cancer diagnosis, low perceived benefit, high perceived risk of low-dose computerized tomography, concern about cancer itself, practical obstacle, futility, stigma, lack of family support, COVID-19 fear, disruptions in cancer care due to COVID-19, inadequate knowledge of care providers, shared decision, and inadequate time (individual level), patient misunderstanding, poor rapport, provider recommendation, lack of established relationship, and confusing decision aid tools (interpersonal group), distrust in the service, fatalistic beliefs, and perception of aging (cultural level), and lack of institutional policy, lack of care coordinators, inadequate infrastructure, absence of insurance coverage, and costs (and organizational status). Conclusions: This study identified critical barriers, facilitators, and implications to lung cancer screening participation. Therefore, we employed strategies for a new digital medicine (artificial intelligence) screening method to balance the cost-benefit, "workdays" lost in case of disease, and family hardship, which is essential to improve lung cancer screening uptake.

Invitation strategies and participation in a community-based lung cancer screening programme located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation

INTRODUCTION

Although lung cancer screening is being implemented in the UK, there is uncertainty about the optimal invitation strategy. Here, we report participation in a community screening programme following a population-based invitation approach, examine factors associated with participation, and compare outcomes with hypothetical targeted invitations.

METHODS

Letters were sent to all individuals (age 55-80) registered with a general practice (n=35 practices) in North and East Manchester, inviting ever-smokers to attend a Lung Health Check (LHC). Attendees at higher risk (PLCOm2012NoRace score≥1.5%) were offered two rounds of annual low-dose CT screening. Primary care recorded smoking codes (live and historical) were used to model hypothetical targeted invitation approaches for comparison.

RESULTS

Letters were sent to 35 899 individuals, 71% from the most socioeconomically deprived quintile. Estimated response rate in ever-smokers was 49%; a lower response rate was associated with younger age, male sex, and primary care recorded current smoking status (adjOR 0.55 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.58), p<0.001). 83% of eligible respondents attended an LHC (n=8887/10 708). 51% were eligible for screening (n=4540/8887) of whom 98% had a baseline scan (n=4468/4540). Screening adherence was 83% (n=3488/4199) and lung cancer detection 3.2% (n=144) over 2 rounds. Modelled targeted approaches required 32%-48% fewer invitations, identified 94.6%-99.3% individuals eligible for screening, and included 97.1%-98.6% of screen-detected lung cancers.

DISCUSSION

Using a population-based invitation strategy, in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation, is effective and may increase screening accessibility. Due to limitations in primary care records, targeted approaches should incorporate historical smoking codes and individuals with absent smoking records.

Barriers and facilitators to engaging in smoking cessation support among lung screening participants

INTRODUCTION

Embedded smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening is recommended in the UK; however, little is known about why individuals decline smoking cessation support in this setting. This study identified psychosocial factors that influence smoking cessation and quit motivation among those who declined support for quitting smoking alongside lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews conducted between August 2019 - April 2021 with thirty adults with a smoking history, recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Participants had declined smoking cessation support. Verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty percent of participants were male and the majority were from the most deprived groups. Participants reported low motivation and a variety of barriers to stopping smoking. Participants described modifiable behavioural factors that influenced their quit motivation including self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of stop-smoking services including smoking cessation aids, risk-minimising beliefs, lack of social support, absence of positive influences on smoking and beliefs about smoking/smoking cessation. Broader contextual factors included social isolation and stigma, COVID-19 and comorbid mental and physical health conditions that deterred smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

To encourage engagement in smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening, interventions should seek to encourage positive beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation aids and increase confidence in quitting as part of supportive, person-centred care. Interventions should also acknowledge the wider social determinants of health among the lung screening-eligible population.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides an in-depth understanding of the beliefs surrounding smoking and smoking cessation and further potential psychosocial factors that influence those attending lung cancer screening. Many of the barriers to smoking cessation found in the present study are similar to those outside of a lung screening setting however this work offers an understanding of potential facilitators that should be considered in future lung screening programmes.

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Knowledge and Awareness of Lung Cancer and Screening in Jazan Region, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer (LC) is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. With lung cancer often diagnosed at advanced stages, understanding the local population's awareness levels is crucial for designing effective preventive strategies. By identifying gaps in knowledge, the research aims to inform targeted health education efforts, optimize resource allocation, influence policy development, and contribute to the limited body of research on lung cancer awareness in the region, ultimately fostering improved public health outcomes.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted in Jazan region, Saudi Arabia, from July 2022 to June 2023, 671 participants over 18 years old, encompassing both genders, were gsurveyed. Data was collected through a questionnaire covering sociodemographic characteristics and LC-related awareness. SPSS 23 was used for analysis. Factors associated with knowledge scores were explored using independent t-tests and ANOVA, with the Tukey post-hoc test identifying specific group differences.

RESULTS

The study included 671 participants, most participants were between 18 and 35 years (73.5%), with 38.5% males and 61.5% females. Lung cancer (LC) awareness was high (95.1%), with 4.9% reporting a family history. Knowledge assessment revealed a mean score of 14.66, with 41.6% having low, 49.5% moderate, and 8.9% high knowledge levels. Correct responses were notable for recognizing LC as a common cancer, a leading cause of death, and associating smoking and shisha with risk. Symptoms were well identified. Screening awareness was at 63.5%, with 78.8% willing to undergo tests if at risk. Age, marital status, and occupation were associated with knowledge, while factors like gender, nationality, residency, education, income, and smoking status showed no significant associations.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that there are knowledge gaps related to LC and its screening in Jazan region in Saudi Arabia. Effective awareness programs targeting specific sociodemographic groups are needed to improve the early detection and outcomes.

Anticipatory anxiety and participation in cancer screening. A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize current evidence on the association between anticipatory anxiety, defined as apprehension-specific negative affect that may be experienced when exposed to potential threat or uncertainty, and cancer screening to better inform strategies to maximize participation rates.

METHODS

Searches related to cancer screening and anxiety were conducted in seven electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL), with potentially eligible papers screened in Covidence. Data extraction was conducted independently by multiple authors. Barriers to cancer screening for any type of cancer and relationships tested between anticipatory anxiety and cancer screening and intention were categorized and compared according to the form and target of anxiety and cancer types.

RESULTS

A total of 74 articles (nparticipants  = 119,990) were included, reporting 103 relationships tested between anticipatory anxiety and cancer screening and 13 instances where anticipatory anxiety was reported as a barrier to screening. Anticipatory anxiety related to a possible cancer diagnosis was often associated with increased screening, while general anxiety showed no consistent relationship. Negative relationships were often found between anxiety about the screening procedure and cancer screening.

CONCLUSION

Anticipatory anxiety about a cancer diagnosis may promote screening participation, whereas a fear of the screening procedure could be a barrier. Public health messaging and primary prevention practitioners should acknowledge the appropriate risk of cancer, while engendering screening confidence and highlighting the safety and comfort of screening tests.

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.

Assessing, updating and utilising primary care smoking records for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for high-risk populations is being implemented in the UK. However, inclusive identification and invitation of the high-risk population is a major challenge for equitable lung screening implementation. Primary care electronic health records (EHRs) can be used to identify lung screening-eligible individuals based on age and smoking history, but the quality of EHR smoking data is limited. This study piloted a novel strategy for ascertaining smoking status in primary care and tested EHR search combinations to identify those potentially eligible for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Seven primary care General Practices in South Wales, UK were included. Practice-level data on missing tobacco codes in EHRs were obtained. To update patient EHRs with no tobacco code, we developed and tested an algorithm that sent a text message request to patients via their GP practice to update their smoking status. The patient's response automatically updated their EHR with the relevant tobacco code. Four search strategies using different combinations of tobacco codes for the age range 55-74+ 364 were tested to estimate the likely impact on the potential lung screening-eligible population in Wales. Search strategies included: BROAD (wide range of ever smoking codes); VOLUME (wide range of ever-smoking codes excluding "trivial" former smoking); FOCUSED (cigarette-related tobacco codes only), and RECENT (current smoking within the last 20 years).

RESULTS

Tobacco codes were not recorded for 3.3% of patients (n = 724/21,956). Of those with no tobacco code and a validated mobile telephone number (n = 333), 55% (n = 183) responded via text message with their smoking status. Of the 183 patients who responded, 43.2% (n = 79) had a history of smoking and were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening. Applying the BROAD search strategy was projected to result in an additional 148,522 patients eligible to receive an invitation for lung cancer screening when compared to the RECENT strategy.

CONCLUSION

An automated text message system could be used to improve the completeness of primary care EHR smoking data in preparation for rolling out a national lung cancer screening programme. Varying the search strategy for tobacco codes may have profound implications for the size of the population eligible for lung-screening invitation.

Imperatives of health or happiness: Narrative constructions of long-term smoking after undergoing lung screening

Tobacco control policies reinforce a health imperative that positions citizens as duty-bound to manage their health by abstaining from or quitting smoking. Limited attention is paid to the repercussions - especially for lung screening - of anti-smoking rhetoric emphasising individual responsibility. Drawing on interviews with 27 long-term smokers involved in an international lung screening trial, this study analysed Australian smokers' narratives of smoking. By attending to stigma and the use of public health rhetoric within personal narratives, we show how narratives underscoring individual responsibility for quitting were layered with conflicting explanations of biological responsibility and normative expectations. Ironically, narratives of individual responsibility potentially undermine smoking cessation. In positioning smokers as responsible for their own healthy choices, such rhetoric also positions smokers as responsible for managing their emotional health, which some did through smoking. Thus, anti-smoking campaigns pit the neoliberal imperative of health against the happiness imperative. These findings have implications for the design and delivery of lung screening campaigns. They also support calls to move beyond health messaging emphasising individual choice, towards acknowledging the moral power of structures and public health campaigns to discipline citizens in unintended ways.

Building a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Lung cancer screening improves lung-cancer specific and potentially overall survival; however, uptake rates are concerningly low. Several barriers to screening exist and require a systemic approach to address. The authors describe their approach toward building a centralized lung cancer screening program at an urban academic center along with lessons learned. To this end, the identification of involved stakeholders, evaluation of community barriers and needs, optimization of the electronic health system, and implementation of system of standardized follow-up for patients are processes for consideration. Perhaps most important to undertaking this endeavor is the need to customize each program and maintain adaptability.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Into Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: Results of the Ontario, Canada Pilot

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose computed tomography screening in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality. To inform the implementation of a provincial lung cancer screening program, Ontario Health undertook a Pilot study, which integrated smoking cessation (SC).

METHODS

The impact of integrating SC into the Pilot was assessed by the following: rate of acceptance of a SC referral; proportion of individuals who were currently smoking cigarettes and attended a SC session; the quit rate at 1 year; change in the number of quit attempts; change in Heaviness of Smoking Index; and relapse rate in those who previously smoked.

RESULTS

A total of 7768 individuals were recruited predominantly through primary care physician referral. Of these, 4463 were currently smoking and were risk assessed and referred to SC services, irrespective of screening eligibility: 3114 (69.8%) accepted referral to an in-hospital SC program, 431 (9.7%) to telephone quit lines, and 50 (1.1%) to other programs. In addition, 4.4% reported no intention to quit and 8.5% were not interested in participating in a SC program. Of the 3063 screen-eligible individuals who were smoking at baseline low-dose computed tomography scan, 2736 (89.3%) attended in-hospital SC counseling. The quit rate at 1 year was 15.5% (95% confidence interval: 13.4%-17.7%; range: 10.5%-20.0%). Improvements were also observed in Heaviness of Smoking Index (p < 0.0001), number of cigarettes smoked per day (p < 0.0001), time to first cigarette (p < 0.0001), and number of quit attempts (p < 0.001). Of those who reported having quit within the previous 6 months, 6.3% had resumed smoking at 1 year. Furthermore, 92.7% of the respondents reported satisfaction with the hospital-based SC program.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of these observations, the Ontario Lung Screening Program continues to recruit through primary care providers, to assess risk for eligibility using trained navigators, and to use an opt-out approach to referral for cessation services. In addition, initial in-hospital SC support and intensive follow-on cessation interventions will be provided to the extent possible.

Public Attitudes Towards Lung Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and it is ranked as the first cause of death in more than 100 countries around the world. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitude of the general population in Saudi Arabia toward lung cancer screening.

Methods

A cross-sectional study employing an online survey was conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 in Saudi Arabia. This study utilized a previously developed questionnaire instrument. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of positive attitude toward lung cancer screening.

Results

A total of 473 participants were involved in this study. The majority of the study participants (74.6%) reported that they are current smokers. Almost 31.5% of the study participants reported that if lung cancer is detected early, the person's chance of surviving is poor to very poor. The majority of the study participants reported that they would be willing to do tests to diagnose lung cancer if you were invited by the Ministry of Health or their doctor. Males, participants aged (24-34 years), and current smokers were more likely to have positive attitude towards lung cancer screening (p ≤ 0.05). On the other hand, patients aged 46 years and over and those with higher education had less positive attitude towards lung cancer screening (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

This is the first study to look into the general public's attitudes toward lung cancer screening in Saudi Arabia. According to our findings, the majority of people believe that early detection of lung cancer can lead to improved results and have a favourable attitude toward lung cancer screening if it is indicated. Thus, incorporating lung cancer screening into the local guidelines in at-risk population is highly recommended and considering the launch of nation-wide lung cancer screening program is advised.

Impact of an integrated classifier using biomarkers, clinical and imaging factors on clinical decisions making for lung nodules

BACKGROUND

An integrated classifier that utilizes plasma proteomic biomarker along with five clinical and imaging factors was previously shown to be potentially useful in lung nodule evaluation. This study evaluated the impact of the integrated proteomic classifier on management decisions in patients with a pretest probability of cancer (pCA) ≤50% in "real-world" clinical setting.

METHODS

Retrospective study examining patients with lung nodules who were evaluated using the integrated classifier as compared to standard clinical care during the same period, with at least 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 995 patients were evaluated for lung nodules over 1 year following the implementation of the integrated classifier with 17.3% prevalence of lung cancer. 231 patients met the study eligibility criteria; 102 (44.2%) were tested with the integrated classifier, while 129 (55.8%) did not. The median number of chest imaging studies was 2 [interquartile range (IQR), 1-2] in the integrated classifier arm and 2 [IQR, 1-3] in the non-integrated classifier arm (P=0.09). The median outpatient clinic visit was 2.00 (IQR, 1.00-3.00) in the integrated classifier arm and 2.00 (IQR, 2.00-3.00) in the non-integrated classifier (P=0.004). Fewer invasive procedures were pursued in the integrated classifier arm as compared to non-integrated classifier respectively (26.5% vs. 79.1%, P<0.001). All patients in the integrated classifier arm with post-pCA (likely benign n=39) had designated benign diagnosis at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with lung nodules with a pCA ≤50%, use of the integrated classifier was associated with fewer invasive procedures and clinic visits without misclassifying patients with likely benign lung nodules results at 1-year follow-up.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866.

FINDINGS

Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity).

INTERPRETATION

Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response.

FUNDING

GRAIL.

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Acceptability of Implementing a Lung Cancer Screening Program in Belgium

Lung cancer is the most common and deadliest cancer in the world, and its incidence is expected to grow. Nonetheless, this growth can be contained through smoking cessation programs and effective lung cancer screening programs. In 2018, Belgium had the seventh highest incidence of lung cancer in the world, with lung cancer incidence accounting for 11.8% of all cancers diagnosed and 23.8% of all cancer-related deaths that same year. The aims of this study were to determine the overall acceptability of a lung cancer screening program in the Flemish population and to determine the main factors that would influence the overall acceptability of such a program. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed in the Flemish population and distributed online and on paper. The results are presented with the variables of interest and the main outcome, i.e., the acceptability of participating in such a program if implemented. Odds ratios were used to compare acceptability between subgroups. A multivariate regression model was used to determine the key factors that would have the largest impact on the level of acceptability and, thus, on the possible efficiency of such a program. This study estimated that acceptability of participating in a lung cancer screening program was 92%. Irrespective of the smoking status, levels of acceptability were higher than 89%. The key factors which could significantly influence the acceptability of a lung cancer screening program were individuals with low education, low protective factor knowledge and total knowledge, and lung cancer screening reimbursement, which were significantly associated with acceptability (0.01, 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05 respectively). Low protective factor knowledge decreased the log odds of acceptability 3.08-fold. In conclusion, the acceptability of implementing a lung cancer screening program in Flanders seems to be extremely high and would be well received by all. When implementing such a program, policymakers should aim for it to be reimbursed, campaigns should be gender-specific, focused on those with lower educational and socioeconomic status, and there should be investment in increasing total knowledge about lung cancer and knowledge about protective factors.

Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland.

METHODS

We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.

Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study

INTRODUCTION

Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study.

METHODS

Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo.

FINDINGS

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.

Early Diagnosis and Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the most significant cause of cancer death, accounting for about 20% of all cancer-related mortality. A significant reason for this is delayed diagnosis, either due to lack of symptoms in early-stage disease or presentation with non-specific symptoms common with a broad range of alternative diagnoses. More is needed in terms of increasing public awareness, providing adequate healthcare professional education and implementing clinical pathways that improve the earlier diagnosis of symptomatic lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography screening of high-risk, asymptomatic populations has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, with focus now shifting towards how best to implement lung cancer screening on a wider scale in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner. For maximum benefit, efforts must be made to optimise uptake, especially among high-risk populations with significant socioeconomic deprivation, as well as successfully incorporate tobacco-dependency treatment. Quality assured programme management will be critical to minimising screening-related harms and adequately managing incidental findings. By undertaking the above, there can be optimism that lung cancer outcomes can be improved significantly in the near future.

Emotions and lung cancer screening: Prioritising a humanistic approach to care

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening has mortality benefits. Yet, uptake has been low. To inform strategies to better deliver and promote screening, in 2018, we interviewed 27 long-term smokers immediately following lung cancer screening in Australia, prior to receiving scan results. Existing lung screening studies employ the Health Belief Model. Reflecting growing acknowledgement of the centrality of emotions to screening uptake, we draw on psychological and sociological theories on emotions to thematically and abductively analyse the emotional dimensions of lung cancer screening, with implications for screening promotion and delivery. As smokers, interviewees described feeling stigmatised, with female participants internalising and male participants resisting stigma. Guilt and fear related to lung cancer were described as screening motivators. The screening itself elicited mild positive emotions. Notably, interviewees expressed gratitude for the care implicitly shown through lung screening to smokers. More than individual risk assessment, findings suggest lung screening campaigns should prioritise emotions. Peer workers have been found to increase cancer screening uptake in marginalised communities, however the risk to confidentiality-especially for female smokers-limits its feasibility in lung cancer screening. Instead, we suggest involving peer consultants in developing targeted screening strategies that foreground emotions. Furthermore, findings suggest prioritising humanistic care in lung screening delivery. Such an approach may be especially important for smokers from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who perceive lung cancer screening and smoking as sources of stigma and face a higher risk of dying from lung cancer and lower engagement with screening.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices towards lung cancer among adults in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a cross-sectional survey

Background

Lung cancer remains the number one cause of cancer mortality estimated at 1.8 million deaths. There are limited studies in resource poor countries regarding knowledge, attitudes and practices towards lung cancer.

Objective

This study aimed to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding lung cancer in selected communities in KwaZulu- Natal, South Africa.

Methods

An observational, analytic cross-sectional study design was conducted using a standardized questionnaire. A stratified random cluster sampling method was applied across five communities. A regression model was developed to identify the predictors of the level of knowledge.

Results

About 59.9% (95% CI 52.0-67.3) of the participants reported to have heard of lung cancer. The mean knowledge score was 41.8% (95% CI 35.7-47.9%). Coughing blood was the most recognized symptom (61.0%, 95% CI 52.1-69.1). About 17% (95% CI 14.7-21.5) of participants reported to be smokers. Many respondents reported that they would go to a health centre or clinic in case they were coughing blood (72.4%, 95% CI 93.9-79.5). Less than 10% (95% CI 3.9-8.1) of participants was screened for lung cancer at the time. Gender, history of working in the chemicals industry, screening for lung cancer, and time taken to seek health care when sick were significant predictors of lung cancer knowledge.

Conclusions

Public health interventions should be explored to increase the levels of community awareness regarding lung cancer, particularly focusing on the importance of screening, early diagnosis and treatment. Keywords: Lung cancer, community awareness, screening, prevention.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung cancer screening: A mixed methods systematic review

Numerous factors contribute to the low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) programs. A theory-informed approach to identifying the obstacles and facilitators to LCS uptake is required. This study aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize the available literature at the individual and healthcare provider (HCP) levels based on a social-ecological model and identify gaps to improve practice and policy decision-making. Systematic searches were conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to December 31, 2020. We also searched Google Scholar and manually examined the reference lists of systematic reviews to include relevant articles. Primary studies were scored for quality assessment. Among 3938 potentially relevant articles, 36 studies, including 25 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, were identified for inclusion in the review. Fifteen common factors were extracted from 34 studies, including nine barriers and six facilitators. The barriers included individual factors (n = 5), health system factors (n = 3), and social/environmental factors (n = 1). The facilitators included only individual factors (n = 6). However, two factors, age and screening harm, remain mixed. This systematic review identified and combined barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake at the individual and HCP levels. The interaction mechanisms among these factors should be further explored, which will allow the construction of tailored LCS recommendations or interventions for the Chinese context.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend

INTRODUCTION

There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible.

METHODS

Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

European lung cancer screening: valuable trial evidence for optimal practice implementation

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography is a strategy for secondary prevention of lung cancer. In the last two decades, LCS trials showed several options to practice secondary prevention in association with primary prevention, however, the translation from trial to practice is everything but simple. In 2020, the European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society published their joint statement paper on LCS. This commentary aims to provide the readership with detailed description about hurdles and potential solutions that could be encountered in the practice of LCS.

Increasing uptake to a lung cancer screening programme: building with communities through co-design

Background

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake.

Methods

A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data.

Results

In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public.

Conclusion

Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.

Prediction of lung cancer risk based on age and smoking history

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The CISNET models provide predictions for dying of lung cancer in any year of life as a function of age and smoking history, but their predictions are quite variable and the models themselves can be complex to implement. Our goal was to develop a simple empirical model of the risk of dying of lung cancer that is mathematically constrained to produce biologically appropriate probability predictions as a function of current age, smoking start age, quit age, and smoking intensity.

METHODS

The six adjustable parameters of the model were evaluated by fitting its predictions of cancer death risk versus age to the mean of published predictions made by the CISNET models for the never smoker and for six different scenarios of lifetime smoking burden.

RESULTS

The mean RMS fitting error of the model was 6.16 × 10 ^-2 (% risk of dying of cancer per year of life) between 55 and 80 years of age. The model predictions increased monotonically with current age, quit age and smoking intensity, and decreased with increasing start age.

CONCLUSIONS

Our simple model of the risk of dying of lung cancer in any given year of life as a function of smoking history is easily implemented and thus may serve as a useful tool in situations where the mortality risks of smoking need to be estimated.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Developing an ACT-based intervention to address lung cancer stigma: Stakeholder recommendations and feasibility testing in two NCI-designated cancer centers

Objective: Few psychosocial interventions have been tailored to meet the unique needs of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. This pilot study developed and tested a six-week intervention for reducing lung cancer stigma.Design and Subjects: Guided by qualitative interviews conducted with 9 lung cancer patients and 5 thoracic oncology care providers, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy was adapted for treatment of lung cancer stigma (ACT-LCS). In a subsequent single arm pilot study, 22 lung cancer patients reporting high levels of stigma completed the intervention.Setting: NCI-designated cancer centers in the Southwestern and Eastern United States.Results: Of 46 eligible patients, 22 provided consent, with 20 completing the intervention (10 in-person, 10 telehealth). Overall stigma decreased across timepoints, largely driven by reductions in internalized stigma. There were also significant reductions in social isolation, sleep disturbance, and fatigue.Conclusions: The ACT-LCS protocol demonstrates preliminary feasibility and acceptability. This intervention may be particularly suited for helping patients navigate feelings associated with internalized stigma.

Psychological Targets for Lung Cancer Screening Uptake: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening by high-risk groups compromises its effectiveness and equity as a population-level early detection strategy. Numerous psychological factors are implicated qualitatively or retrospectively, but prospective data are needed to validate their associations with uptake behavior and specify psychological targets for intervention.

METHODS

This is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake. Ever-smokers (aged 55-77 y) were invited to a lung health check, at which low-dose computed tomography screening was offered through the SUMMIT Study-a multicenter screening implementation trial. One week after their screening invitation, 44,000 invitees were mailed the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Regression analyses evaluated the constructs' associations with uptake (telephoning for an appointment) and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Higher odds of uptake were associated with both positive and negative perceptions. Positive perceptions included lung cancer controllability, benefits of early diagnosis, improved survival when lung cancer is detected early, willingness to be treated, and believing smoking cessation is effective in reducing risk. Negative perceptions included a higher lung cancer risk perception, negative beliefs about the consequences of lung cancer, perceiving lung cancer as stigmatized, and a negative emotional response. Although current smokers held the highest risk perceptions, they also reported negative perceptions that could undermine how they behave in response to their risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve uptake should focus on changing perceptions that affect how an individual reacts when they believe their risk of lung cancer is high.

Social Disparities in Lung Cancer Risk and Screening

Significant disparities exist in lung cancer incidence and screening. Geographic, racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities affect lung cancer incidence. As the leading cause of lung cancer, smoking varies among different racioethnic groups, genders, and socioeconomic statuses. In addition, environmental pollutants, such as radon, industrial toxins, and air pollution, are significant risk factors for lung cancer development that is disproportionately seen in working-class communities, as well as underserved and disabled populations. Lung cancer incidence depends on diagnosis. Literature examining lung cancer incidence and screening disparities have its limitations, as most studies are methodologically limited and do not adjust for important risk factors.

The perspectives of survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma on lung cancer screening: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (HLS) are at excess risk of lung cancer as a consequence of HL treatment. HLS without a heavy smoking history are currently unable to access lung cancer screening (LCS) programmes aimed at ever smokers, and there is an unmet need to develop a targeted LCS programme. In this study we prospectively explored HLS perspectives on a future LCS programme, including motivating factors and potential barriers to participation, with the aim of identifying ways to optimise uptake in a future programme.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with HLS, aged 18-80 and lymphoma-free for ≥5 years, selected from a clinical database (ADAPT). Participants provided informed consent. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Despite awareness of other late effects, most participants were unaware of their excess risk of lung cancer. Most were willing to participate in a future LCS programme, citing the potential curability of early-stage lung cancer and reassurance as motivating factors, whilst prior experience of healthcare was a facilitator. Whilst the screening test (a low dose CT scan) was considered acceptable, radiation risk was a concern for some and travel and time off work were potential barriers to participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that most HLS would participate in a future LCS programme, motivated by perceived benefits. Their feedback identified a need to develop educational materials addressing lung cancer risk and concerns about screening, including radiation risk. Such materials could be provided upon an invitation to LCS. Uptake in a future programme may be further optimized by offering flexible screening appointments close to home.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lung cancer screening: intention to participate and acceptability among Belgian smokers

OBJECTIVE

Next to the obvious benefits of tobacco-use cessation, lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans has been proposed as a means to lower lung cancer burden. Achieving an impact of any cancer screening program on cancer-specific mortality largely depends on the uptake. The aim of this study was to estimate the acceptability and intention to participate in a lung cancer screening program among Belgian current or former smokers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among adults from the Belgian population. Sampling took place within an existing online panel.

RESULTS

In total, 83.6% of all respondents (n = 2727), including current or former smokers and never smokers, believed that offering lung cancer screening to current or former smokers is a good idea. 84.3% of all current or former smokers (n = 1534) answered that they would likely or very likely participate in a screening program for lung cancer. The majority of current smokers that were willing to be screened said they would also want to receive tobacco-use cessation counseling in parallel with screening (71.8%; n = 486), whereas 9% (n = 61) would decline.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that a Belgian lung cancer screening program would be acceptable and could be well-attended by current or former smokers. Further research should focus on how smokers can be best reached to propose screening, and how tobacco-use cessation counseling can be successfully integrated in a lung cancer screening program.

Using Electronic Medical Records to Identify Potentially Eligible Study Subjects for Lung Cancer Screening with Biomarkers

Simple Summary

Recent cancer screening trials have found that using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), compared to chest radiography, resulted in a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality. To effectively carry out this intervention, individuals at a high risk of developing lung cancer are targeted. However, accurately identifying and retaining these groups can be challenging. As electronic medical records (EMRs) contain important demographic and clinical information, they could be used to accurately identify subjects for screening. To determine whether EMRs can be used for this purpose, this paper examines the evidence around the use of EMRs in screening trials and the information contained in them that could be used to aid researchers in identifying eligible subjects.

Abstract

Lung cancer screening trials using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) show reduced late-stage diagnosis and mortality rates. These trials have identified high-risk groups that would benefit from screening. However, these sub-populations can be difficult to access and retain in trials. Implementation of national screening programmes further suggests that there is poor uptake in eligible populations. A new approach to participant selection may be more effective. Electronic medical records (EMRs) are a viable alternative to population-based or health registries, as they contain detailed clinical and demographic information. Trials have identified that e-screening using EMRs has improved trial retention and eligible subject identification. As such, this paper argues for greater use of EMRs in trial recruitment and screening programmes. Moreover, this opinion paper explores the current issues in and approaches to lung cancer screening, whether records can be used to identify eligible subjects for screening and the challenges that researchers face when using EMR data.

Understanding patient factors to increase uptake of cancer screening: a review

Early detection of cancer through organized screening is a central component of population-level strategies to reduce cancer mortality. For screening programs to be effective, it is important that those invited to screening participate. However, uptake rates are suboptimal in many populations and vary between screening programs, indicating a complex combination of patient factors that require elucidation to develop evidence-based strategies to increase participation. In this review, the authors summarize individual-level (sociodemographic and psychosocial) factors associated with cancer screening uptake and evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral interventions to increase uptake. The authors reflect on current trends and future directions for behavioral cancer screening research to overcome challenges and address unmet needs in reducing cancer mortality.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

Background To address disparities in lung cancer screening (LCS) that may exclude large numbers of high-risk African American smokers, revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations lowered LCS eligibility thresholds. However, there are limited recent data about the impact of newly revised guidelines on disparities in LCS eligibility. Purpose To evaluate the impact of revised USPSTF guidelines on racial and ethnic disparities in LCS eligibility. Materials and Methods Cross-sectional survey data from 20 states were retrospectively evaluated from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey (median response rate, 49.4%). Respondents without a history of lung cancer aged 55-79 years (ie, under the previous guidelines) or aged 50-79 years (ie, under the revised guidelines) were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between race and ethnicity and LCS eligibility. All analyses were performed accounting for complex survey design features (ie, weighting, stratification, and clustering). Results Under previous guidelines, 11% of 67 567 weighted survey respondents were eligible for LCS (White [12%], Hispanic [4%], African American [7%], American Indian [17%], Asian or Pacific Islander [4%], and other [12%]). Under revised USPSTF guidelines, 14% of 77 689 weighted survey respondents were eligible for LCS (White [15%], Hispanic [5%], African American [9%], American Indian [21%), Asian or Pacific Islander [5%], and other [18%]). Compared with White respondents, African American respondents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.47; P < .001) and Hispanic respondents (adjusted OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.24; P < .001) were less likely to be eligible for LCS under previous guidelines. African American respondents (adjusted OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.47; P < .001) and Hispanic respondents (adjusted OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.23; P < .001) were less likely to be eligible under the revised guidelines. The Wald test showed no evidence of differences in the degree to which racial and ethnic minority groups were less likely to be eligible for LCS when comparing previous versus revised USPSTF guidelines (P = .76). Conclusion The revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines (version 2.0) may perpetuate lung cancer disparities, as racial and ethnic minority groups are still less likely to be eligible for lung cancer screening. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Jacobs and Springfield in this issue.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

Promoting Community Awareness of Lung Cancer Screening Among Disparate Populations: Results of the cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education Project

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the no. 1 cause of cancer death in the United States. Racial/ethnic minority and medically underserved populations suffer higher mortality than whites. Early detection through uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among screening-eligible adults may mitigate high mortality. However, nearly 5 years since the publication of the US Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guideline, population awareness of LDCT is low, and only 4% of screening-eligible adults have undergone screening.

OBJECTIVE

This project used an education intervention to change participants' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer risk factors and lung cancer and to connect eligible individuals to LDCT screening and tobacco cessation services.

INTERVENTIONS/METHODS

Community-engaged strategies were used to deliver a 4-week educational program in 13 community sites. Trained community health workers delivered the intervention. The intervention was guided by the Health Belief Model. Data were collected by survey to 481 participants; 93% were African American, the majority was female (73.1%), mean age was 58.3 (SD, 10.9) years.

RESULTS

There were knowledge increase regarding lung cancer screening (P = .001), a significant decrease in Perceived Severity and Perceived Barriers subscales (P = .001), and an overall increase in response to Perceived Benefits of lung cancer screening and Self-efficacy (P = .001). Fifty-four percent of tobacco users engaged in cessation; 38% of screening-eligible participants underwent LDCT screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Community health workers are effective in increasing awareness of lung cancer screening and affecting behavior change among disparate populations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Community health workers may have a clinical role in LDCT shared decision making.

A retrospective on fundamental cause theory: State of the literature, and goals for the future

Fundamental Cause Theory (FCT) was originally proposed to explain how socioeconomic inequalities in health emerged and persisted over time. The concept was that higher socioeconomic status helped some people to avoid risks and adopt protective strategies using flexible resources - knowledge, money, power, prestige and beneficial social connections. As a sociological theory, FCT addressed this issue by calling on social stratification, stigma, and racism as they affected medical treatments and health outcomes. The last comprehensive review was completed a decade ago. Since then, FCT has been tested, and new applications have extended central features. The current review consolidates key foci in the literature in order to guide future research in the field. Notable themes emerged around types of resources and their usage, approaches used to test the theory, and novel extensions. We conclude that after 25 years of use, there remain crucial questions to be addressed.

A Web-Based Intervention to Increase Smokers' Intentions to Participate in a Cessation Study Offered at the Point of Lung Screening: Factorial Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Screen ASSIST is a cessation trial offered to current smokers at the point of lung cancer screening. Because of the unique position of promoting a prevention behavior (smoking cessation) within the context of a detection behavior (lung cancer screening), this study employed prospect theory to design and formatively evaluate a targeted recruitment video prior to trial launch.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify which message frames were most effective at promoting intent to participate in a smoking cessation study.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from a proprietary opt-in online panel company and randomized to a 2 (benefits of quitting vs risks of continuing to smoke at the time of lung screening; BvR) × 2 (gains of participating vs losses of not participating in a cessation study; GvL) message design experiment (N=314). The primary outcome was self-assessed intent to participate in a smoking cessation study. Message effectiveness and lung cancer risk perception measures were also collected. Analysis of variance examined the main effect of the 2 message factors and a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach identified predictors of intent to participate in a multivariable model. A mediation analysis was conducted to determine the direct and indirect effects of message factors on intent to participate in a cessation study.

RESULTS

A total of 296 participants completed the intervention. There were no significant differences in intent to participate in a smoking cessation study between message frames (P=.12 and P=.61). In the multivariable model, quit importance (P<.001), perceived message relevance (P<.001), and affective risk response (ie, worry about developing lung cancer; P<.001) were significant predictors of intent to participate. The benefits of quitting frame significantly increased affective risk response (Meanbenefits 2.60 vs Meanrisk 2.40; P=.03), which mediated the relationship between message frame and intent to participate (b=0.24; 95% CI 0.01-0.47; P=.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides theoretical and practical guidance on how to design and evaluate proactive recruitment messages for a cessation trial. Based on our findings, we conclude that heavy smokers are more responsive to recruitment messages that frame the benefits of quitting as it increased affective risk response, which predicted greater intention to participate in a smoking cessation study.

Using Implementation Science to Disseminate a Lung Cancer Screening Education Intervention Through Community Health Workers

National lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) uptake is suboptimal. One factor contributing to slow uptake is lack of awareness. Trained Community Health Workers (CHWs) may be effective in increasing lung cancer screening awareness among disparate populations, however little is known about the processes necessary to scale an intervention for implementation by CHWs in a new area. We examined implementation processes with the RE-AIM framework and pilot tested a CHW-delivered lung cancer education intervention based on the Health Belief Model. We measured pre-post participant knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding cancer screening, lung cancer stigma, and intent to obtain LDCT screening. We used community-engaged strategies to collaborate with a local health system, to identify CHWs. CHWs were trained to recruit participants and deliver the one-session lung cancer education intervention. Seven CHWs and eight community sites participated. Participants (n = 77) were female (53%) primarily low income (62.9%); tobacco use was high (36.9%). Post intervention changes in lung cancer screening knowledge (p =  < .0001), attitudes regarding lung cancer screening benefit (p = .034) and lung cancer stigma. (p = .024) We learned important lessons that will be useful in subsequent scaling. Collaborating with a local health system is a promising method to disseminate a lung cancer screening education intervention.

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.

Racial Differences in Lung Cancer Screening Beliefs and Screening Adherence

BACKGROUND

One challenge in high-quality lung cancer screening (LCS) is maintaining adherence with annual and short-interval follow-up screens among high-risk individuals who have undergone baseline low-dose CT (LDCT). This study aimed to characterize attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS and to identify factors associated with LCS adherence.

METHODS

We administered a questionnaire to 269 LCS participants to assess attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS. Clinical data including sociodemographics and screening adherence were obtained from the LCS Program Registry.

RESULTS

African-American individuals had significantly greater lung cancer worries compared with Whites (6.10 vs. 4.66, P < .001). In making the decision to undergo LCS, African-American participants described screening convenience and cost as very important factors significantly more frequently than Whites (60% vs. 26.8%, P< .001 and 58.4% vs. 37.8%, P = .001; respectively). African-American individuals with greater than high school education had significantly higher odds of LCS adherence (aOR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-5.60) than Whites with less than high school education. Participants who described screening convenience and cost as "very important" had significantly lower odds of completing screening follow-up after adjusting for demographic and other factors (aOR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97 and aOR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Racial differences in beliefs about lung cancer and LCS exist among African-American and White individuals enrolled in an LCS program. Cost, convenience, and low educational attainment may be barriers to LCS adherence, specifically among African-American individuals.

IMPACT

More research is needed on how barriers can be overcome to improve LCS adherence.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

Advancing health equity in cancer care: The lived experiences of poverty and access to lung cancer screening

Background

Individuals living with low income are more likely to smoke, have a higher risk of lung cancer, and are less likely to participate in preventative healthcare (i.e., low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening), leading to equity concerns. To inform the delivery of an organized pilot lung cancer screening program in Ontario, we sought to contextualize the lived experiences of poverty and the choice to participate in lung cancer screening.

Methods

At three Toronto academic primary-care clinics, high-risk screen-eligible patients who chose or declined LDCT screening were consented; sociodemographic data was collected. Qualitative interviews were conducted. Theoretical thematic analysis was used to organize, describe and interpret the data using the morphogenetic approach as a guiding theoretical lens.

Results

Eight participants chose to undergo screening; ten did not. From interviews, we identified three themes: Pathways of disadvantage (social trajectories of events that influence lung-cancer risk and health-seeking behaviour), lung-cancer risk and early detection (upstream factors that shape smoking behaviour and lung-cancer screening choices), and safe spaces of care (care that is free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas or conversations). We illuminate how ‘choice’ is contextual to the availability of material resources such as income and housing, and how ‘choice’ is influenced by having access to spaces of care that are free of judgement and personal bias.

Conclusion

Underserved populations will require multiprong interventions that work at the individual, system and structural level to reduce inequities in lung-cancer risk and access to healthcare services such as cancer screening.

Psychosocial determinants of quit motivation in older smokers from deprived backgrounds: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

To identify psychosocial determinants of quit motivation in older deprived smokers. The evidence may be used to optimise smoking cessation interventions for the target population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey using online recruitment methods including Facebook-targeted advertising.

SETTING

UK, 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Current smokers aged 50 years or older and from a socioeconomically deprived background.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures included motivation to stop smoking, smoking history, perceived social support, self-efficacy for quitting, self-exempting beliefs and lung cancer risk perception. Multivariable regression was used to analyse factors associated with quit motivation.

RESULTS

Of a total 578 individuals who consented to take part, 278 (48.1%) did not meet the inclusion criteria. Of the 300 eligible participants, most were recruited using Facebook (94.0%), were aged 50-64 years (83.7%) and women (85.7%). Most participants were renting from a housing association (72.0%) and had low education (61.0%). Higher motivation to quit was statistically significantly associated with a higher intensity of previous quit attempts (p=0.03), higher quit confidence (p=0.01), higher smoking self-efficacy (p=0.01), a lower risk-minimising beliefs score (p=0.01) and using traditional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) when trying to stop smoking or cut down (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Older smokers from deprived backgrounds face complex barriers to quitting smoking. Interventions are needed to increase self-efficacy for quitting, modify risk-minimising beliefs and target elements of previous quit attempts (ie, the use of NRT) that are associated with motivation to stop smoking.

Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA for both men and women, and also worldwide, it is the commonest cause of cancer death. The five-year survival rate for LC depends on the stage at which it is diagnosed. It is over 50% for cases detected in a localized stage but when the disease has spread to other organs, the five-year survival rate is only 5%. Unfortunately, only 16% of LC cases are diagnosed at an early stage. In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual LC screening with low dose chest computed tomography (CT) in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, based on the evidence from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the USA. When it comes to recruiting the target group for lung cancer screening (LCS), there are several barriers to overcome, such as whom exactly to include, where to find the target group, how to convince the target to participate or how to attract participants from all socioeconomic groups. The aim of this review is to find out what is already known about how the target group for LCS can be contacted and how participation can be improved, since uptake is a key issue in every (cancer) screening program. A review of the literature was conducted using ‘lung cancer screening and participation and uptake’ as search string. We searched in Web of Science and PubMed for reviews, systematic reviews and articles, published between 2015 and 2020. Compared to the target groups for screening in the long-running cancer screening programs of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer, there are several additional obstacles regarding defining, locating and recruiting of the target group for LCS. Shared decision-making is crucial when we want to reach the hard to reach for LCS and it should be improved, by educating primary care practitioners about LCS guidelines and providing them with the necessary tools, such as decision aids, to facilitate their job in this respect. Moreover, the information materials should be more tailored to specific groups who participate least.