Lung Cancer Screening in African Americans: The Time to Act Is Now

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

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

Environmental exposures are important risk factors for advanced liver fibrosis in African American adults

Background & Aims

The prevalence and aetiology of liver fibrosis vary over time and impact racial/ethnic groups unevenly. This study measured time trends and identified factors associated with advanced liver fibrosis in the United States.

Methods

Standardised methods were used to analyse data on 47,422 participants (≥20 years old) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2018). Advanced liver fibrosis was defined as Fibrosis-4 ≥2.67 and/or Forns index ≥6.9 and elevated alanine aminotransferase.

Results

The estimated number of people with advanced liver fibrosis increased from 1.3 million (95% CI 0.8-1.9) to 3.5 million (95% CI 2.8-4.2), a nearly threefold increase. Prevalence was higher in non-Hispanic Black and Mexican American persons than in non-Hispanic White persons. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, cadmium was an independent risk factor in all racial/ethnic groups. Smoking and current excessive alcohol use were risk factors in most. Importantly, compared with non-Hispanic White persons, non-Hispanic Black persons had a distinctive set of risk factors that included poverty (odds ratio [OR] 2.09; 95% CI 1.44-3.03) and susceptibility to lead exposure (OR 3.25; 95% CI 1.95-5.43) but did not include diabetes (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.61-1.27; p =0.52). Non-Hispanic Black persons were more likely to have high exposure to lead, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls, and poverty than non-Hispanic White persons.

Conclusions

The number of people with advanced liver fibrosis has increased, creating a need to expand the liver care workforce. The risk factors for advanced fibrosis vary by race/ethnicity. These differences provide useful information for designing screening programmes. Poverty and toxic exposures were associated with the high prevalence of advanced liver fibrosis in non-Hispanic Black persons and need to be addressed.

Impact and Implications

Because liver disease often produces few warning signs, simple and inexpensive screening tests that can be performed by non-specialists are needed to allow timely diagnosis and linkage to care. This study shows that non-Hispanic Black persons have a distinctive set of risk factors that need to be taken into account when designing liver disease screening programs. Exposure to exogenous toxins may be especially important risk factors for advanced liver fibrosis in non-Hispanic Black persons.

Factors Associated With Smoking Cessation Attempts in Lung Cancer Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality resulting from lung cancer screening (LCS) with an additive reduction from smoking abstinence. However, successful smoking cessation within LCS is variable.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What patient and treatment factors are associated with attempts to quit smoking among those screened for lung cancer?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the NLST, patient demographics, patient smoking behaviors, and tobacco treatment variables were stratified by patient smoking status. The Cox proportional hazards ratio was used to evaluate each variable's effect on attempting to quit smoking.

RESULTS

Seven thousand three hundred sixty-nine patients were smoking actively at enrollment in the NLST. Of the patients who reported they were smoking, 73.4% did not receive any pharmacologic tobacco treatment. More patients who attempted to quit received pharmacologic tobacco treatment than those who continued to smoke: (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], 18.0% vs 12.4% [P < .01]; bupropion, 7.9% vs 6.9% [P = .02]; both NRT and bupropion, 5.6% vs 3.9% [P < .01]). Stable users were more likely to be women (47.8% vs 43.8%; P < .01), to be African American (8.2% vs 6.3%; P = .007), to be unmarried (43.2% vs 36.9% [P < .01]), and to have less than a college education (47.7% vs 42.3%; P < .01). Patients with high dependence who received dual therapy with bupropion and NRT showed the highest likelihood of quit attempt (hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.75-2.44).

INTERPRETATION

In this analysis, only one-quarter of patients who underwent LCS and who smoked were treated with pharmacologic therapy, which is associated with increased likelihood of attempting to quit. Certain characteristics are associated with difficulty with attempting to quit smoking. Those with high nicotine dependence benefitted most from dual pharmacologic therapy.

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.

One size does not fit all: Evaluating disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility amongst the Hispanic population

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanic men. We assessed the tendencies for screening eligibility amongst Hispanic prior to LC diagnosis according to the NCCN and The USPSTF guidelines available at the time of diagnosis. We conducted an observational study in patients diagnosed with LC from 2016 to 2019. Charts were reviewed to assess their screening eligibility prior to LC. The chi-square test was used to examine the association between race and ethnicity with each screening criteria. A total of 530 subjects were reviewed, of which 432 were included in the analysis. One hundred fifty-three and 245 subjects were ineligible for screening under NCCN and USPSTF criteria prior to their LC diagnosis. Twenty-eight of the subjects who did not fulfill NCCN criteria identified as AA and 12 as Hispanics. Forty and 20 of the USPSTF screening ineligible subjects identified as AA and Hispanics. There was a significant association between screening eligibility criteria in Hispanics, with 52% Hispanic subjects meeting NCCN criteria compared to only 20% who met USPSTF (p=0.0184). There was also a significant association between ethnicity and USPSTF eligibility criteria (p=0.0166), as 80% of Hispanic subjects were screening ineligible under USPSTF criteria compared to 56% of non-Hispanic or other. In our study, Hispanics had significantly lower tendencies of meeting the USPSTF LC screening eligibility criteria than non-Hispanics or other. Interestingly, a proportionally higher number of Hispanics who were ineligible under USPSTF criteria met NCCN criteria. These findings suggest that leniency in the screening criteria can possibly lead to earlier detection of LC in high-risk individuals. Recently, USPSTF has modified their criteria which may benefit more of these individuals. To improve rates of screening and overall mortality of minorities, organizations should continue to re-evaluate and liberalize their screening guidelines.

In pursuit of equity in cancer care: moving beyond the Affordable Care Act

Although Medicaid Expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been associated with many improvements for patients with cancer, Snyder et al. provide evidence demonstrating the persistence of racial disparities in cancer. This Editorial describes why insurance coverage alone does not ensure access to health care, highlights various manifestations of structural racism that constitute barriers to access beyond the direct costs of care, and calls for not just equality, but equity, in cancer care.

US Cancer Screening Recommendations: Developments and the Impact of COVID-19

The USPSTF and ACS recommend screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. Rates of cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment decreased significantly in the US and other developed nations during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown (April 2020) and have since recovered, although not to baseline levels in many cases. For breast cancer, the USPSTF recommends biennial screening with mammography for women aged 50−74, while the ACS recommends annual screening for women aged 45−54, who may transition to biennial after 55. Minority and rural populations have lower rates of screening and lower utilization of DBT, which offers superior sensitivity and specificity. Among 20 US health networks in April 2020, mammography rates were down 89.2% and new breast cancer diagnoses down by 50.5%. For cervical cancer, the USPSTF recommends cervical cytology every three years for women 21−65, or cytology+hrHPV co-testing every five years for women aged 30−65. Cervical cancer screening rates declined by 87% in April 2020 and recovered to a 40% decline by June 2020, with American Indians and Asians most severely affected. For colorectal cancer (CRC), the USPSTF and ACS recommend screening for ages 45−75, recently lowered from a starting age of 50. Most commonly-used modalities include annual FIT testing, FIT+DNA testing every three years, and colonoscopy every ten years, with shorter repeat if polyps are found. In the US, CRC screenings were down by 79−84.5% in April 2020 across several retrospective studies. Patient encounters for CRC were down by 39.9%, and a UK-based model predicted that 5-year-survival would decrease by 6.4%. The USPSTF recommends screening low dose CT scans (LDCTs) for ages 50−80 with a >20 pack-year smoking history who have smoked within the past 15 years. In April 2020, screening LDCTs fell by 72−78% at one US institution and lung cancer diagnoses were down 39.1%.

Increased Disparities in Patients Diagnosed with Metastatic Lung Cancer Following Lung CT Screening in the United States

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine if implementation of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer in the United States had led to changes in patients being diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database was utilized to determine the proportion of lung cancers diagnosed as stage I to III and stage IV from 2009-2018. Changes in lung cancer stage distribution were compared in the overall population and by race.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2018, the proportion of stage I to III lung cancers increased from 52% (51.3%-53.2%) in 2009 to 56% (54.0%-55.8%) in 2018 (P < .001). Correspondingly, the proportion of lung cancers diagnosed in stage IV decreased from 48% (46.8%-48.7%) in 2009 to 45% (44.2%-46.0%) (P < .001) in 2018. For white patients, the proportion increased from 53% (51.6%-53.7%) to 56% (55.1%-57.1%) (P < .001). However, for black patients, no trend was present, with the proportion being 51% (47.9%-53.4%) in 2009 and 52% (49.0%-54.2%) in 2018 (P = .303).

CONCLUSION

Since the implementation of LDCT screening, the proportion of early-stage lung cancers increased in the general population. These changes in stage distribution were not present in black patients.

Narrowing the Gap: Imaging Disparities in Radiology

It may seem unlikely that the field of radiology perpetuates disparities in health care, as most radiologists never interact directly with patients, and racial bias is not an obvious factor when interpreting images. However, a closer look reveals that imaging plays an important role in the propagation of disparities. For example, many advanced and resource-intensive imaging modalities, such as MRI and PET/CT, are generally less available in the hospitals frequented by people of color, and when they are available, access is impeded due to longer travel and wait times. Furthermore, their images may be of lower quality, and their interpretations may be more error prone. The aggregate effect of these imaging acquisition and interpretation disparities in conjunction with social factors is insufficiently recognized as part of the wide variation in disease outcomes seen between races in America. Understanding the nature of disparities in radiology is important to effectively deploy the resources and expertise necessary to mitigate disparities through diversity and inclusion efforts, research, and advocacy. In this article, the authors discuss disparities in access to imaging, examine their causes, and propose solutions aimed at addressing these disparities.