An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice

Community-Based Lung Cancer Screening Program Structure, Quality, and Barriers: The Struggle for Implementation

Objectives: Recommendations for programmatic components for lung cancer screening programs (LCSPs) have been published; however, adoption within LCSPs has not been mandated and implementation requires resources. We aimed to determine the presence of recommended structural and quality elements within LCSPs and determine barriers to performing LCS within a community-based, multistate healthcare network. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using two structured interviews within a community-based healthcare network between 1 June 2018 and 31 July 2020. Two separate interviews were created, one delivered to LCSP navigators to determine the presence of recommended structural and quality elements within LCSPs and one delivered to imaging center administrators to determine barriers to LCS implementation. Results: Of the 22 LCSPs, 20 (91%) were decentralized and 2 (9%) centralized. Three (14%) utilized standardized shared decision-making tools and 13 (59%) a multidisciplinary nodule review. Of the 21 (95%) LCSPs who collected information for external purposes, 9 (43%) collected it manually. Ten (45%) utilized a standard procedure for smoking cessation, and 5 (23%) had Certified Tobacco Treatment Specialists. Of the 31 affiliated imaging sites not associated with a LCSP, 8 (26%) were performing LCS. While 19 (61%) sites had the resources to fulfill or maintain an increase in LCS orders, lack of resources was the predominant (11, 35%) barrier to implementing a LCSP. Conclusions: A wide variation in the structure, quality, and resource allocation was identified within the network of LCSPs. Further research identifying the implications this variation has on outcomes, operational cost, and experience may shed light on whether stringent program quality control is needed.

The Effect of X-ray Dose Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography on Nodule Properties in a Lung Cancer Screening Cohort: A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of photon-counting detector (PCD-)CT dose reduction to x-ray equivalent levels on nodule detection, diameter, volume, and density compared to a low-dose reference standard using semiautomated and manual methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February and July 2023, 101 prospectively enrolled participants underwent noncontrast same-study low- and chest x-ray-dose CT scans using PCD-CT. Patients who were not referred for lung cancer screening or nodule follow-up, as well as those with nodules smaller than 5 mm in diameter, were excluded. Nodule detection and measurement of nodule diameters and volumes was semiautomatically performed for low- and x-ray-dose scans using computer-aided diagnosis software. Additionally, 2 blinded readers manually measured largest nodule diameters and examined nodule density. Nodules were classified using Lung-RADS v2022. Image quality was assessed with subjective and objective measures.

RESULTS

Mean CTDIvol for x-ray dose scans was 0.11 ± 0.03 mGy, compared to 0.65 ± 0.15 mGy for low-dose images (P < 0.001). One hundred seventy-two nodules larger than 5 mm were detected in 53 of the 101 participants (32 male, 61.6 ± 12.5 years; 21 female, 60.3 ± 12.5 years). The semiautomated method had high overall sensitivity for nodule detection (0.94) on x-ray dose scans, with a higher sensitivity for solid nodules (>0.95) and lower for subsolid nodules (>0.86). Nodules not detected on x-ray dose scans were significantly smaller. Semiautomated measurements underestimated nodule diameter for solid nodules on x-ray dose scans (P = 0.01), but no significant effect for nodule volume was found (P = 0.775). Readers rated nodule density less dense on x-ray dose scans (R1: P < 0.001, R2: P = 0.006). There was no significant difference in nodule diameter for both readers between scan doses (R1: P = 0.141; R2: P = 0.554). There were good to excellent correlations between semiautomated and reader nodule diameters. Agreement and accuracy between low-dose and x-ray dose Lung-RADS classifications across methods were good (Cohens' к = 0.73, 0.62, 0.76 for semiautomated method, R1 and R2; resp. Accuracy: 0.82, 0.78, 0.85). No Lung-RADS classification changes were observed with semiautomated volumetric measurements of nodules.

CONCLUSIONS

Semiautomated nodule detection is highly sensitive in PCD-CT x-ray dose scans. Semiautomated nodule volume measurement is more robust to image quality changes than nodule diameter. Accurate semiautomated and manual nodule measurements are feasible on x-ray dose scans, but nodule density was in tendency underestimated. Nodule classification using Lung-RADS was shown to be accurate on x-ray dose scans.

"We don't get that information right back to us unless it's a full-blown cancer": Challenges coordinating lung cancer screening across healthcare systems

OBJECTIVE

To examine how lung cancer screening (LCS) is coordinated across healthcare systems, specifically Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA settings.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

We conducted primary qualitative data collection in six VA medical centers with established LCS programs from November 2020 to November 2021.

STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 48 primary care providers, LCS program coordinators and directors, and pulmonologists. Thematic analysis examined spontaneously raised narratives related to initiating and coordinating LCS for Veterans screened in non-VA settings. We mapped coordination challenges to each step of the LCS care continuum.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

While non-VA options increased access to LCS for Veterans, VA medical centers lacked clear processes for initiating LCS referrals and tracking Veterans across the LCS continuum when screening occurred in non-VA settings. The responsibility of coordinating LCS with community providers often fell to VA primary care providers rather than LCS programs. Gaps in communication and data transfer contributed to delayed evaluation of potentially cancerous nodules post-screening, raising concerns about compromised care quality when LCS was shared with non-VA settings.

CONCLUSIONS

While policies expanding LCS for Veterans in non-VA settings increase access, lack of consistent processes to initiate referrals, obtain results, and promote timely downstream evaluation fragmented care and delayed evaluation of concerning nodules. These unintended consequences highlight a need to address cross-system coordination challenges. Strategies to better coordinate LCS between VA and non-VA settings are essential to achieve high quality LCS and prevent Veterans from falling through the cracks.

Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis

Introduction. Many organizations recommend structured communication processes, including formal shared decision making (SDM), for patients undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). We sought to understand if concordant and shared LCS decision making was associated with decisional conflict. Methods. In this prospective, observational study, we enrolled patients from 3 medical centers (2 Veterans Health Administration, 1 academic facility) after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving the LDCT. We included patients who indicated they accepted or declined to undergo the LDCT. We evaluated preferred and actual decision-making roles and used multivariable linear and logistic regression models to measure the association of concordant (congruence between actual and preferred roles) and shared LCS decision making with decisional conflict to report adjusted odds ratios (AOR). Results. Of the 409 participants with nonmissing information, 83% reported LCS decision-making role concordance. In addition, 223 (58%) reported an indeterminate level and 56 (14%) reported decisional conflict. LCS decision-making role concordance was not associated with decisional conflict (AOR = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-1.94, P = 0.71) compared with role discordance. Participant-reported actual LCS SDM role was not associated with decisional conflict (AOR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.51-1.93, P = 0.98) compared with patient- or provider-controlled roles. Conclusions. LCS decisional conflict was uncommon, although many patients reported an indeterminate level of decisional conflict. Neither concordant nor shared LCS decision-making role was associated with decisional conflict. Clinicians may be unable to decrease LCS decisional conflict using efforts to enhance decision-making interactions.

Highlights

We evaluated patients' preferred and actual decision-making role and decisional conflict following a decision-making interaction about lung cancer screening (LCS).Concordant decision-making preference was not associated with decisional conflict.Actual decision-making role was also not associated with decisional conflict.Efforts to enhance decision-making interactions may not decrease LCS decisional conflict.

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

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

Efficient management of pulmonary embolism diagnosis using a two-step interconnected machine learning model based on electronic health records data

Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is a life-threatening clinical disease with no specific clinical symptoms and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) is used for diagnosis. Clinical decision support scoring systems like Wells and rGeneva based on PE risk factors have been developed to estimate the pre-test probability but are underused, leading to continuous overuse of CTA imaging. This diagnostic study aimed to propose a novel approach for efficient management of PE diagnosis using a two-step interconnected machine learning framework directly by analyzing patients' Electronic Health Records data. First, we performed feature importance analysis according to the result of LightGBM superiority for PE prediction, then four state-of-the-art machine learning methods were applied for PE prediction based on the feature importance results, enabling swift and accurate pre-test diagnosis. Throughout the study patients' data from different departments were collected from Sina educational hospital, affiliated with the Tehran University of medical sciences in Iran. Generally, the Ridge classification method obtained the best performance with an F1 score of 0.96. Extensive experimental findings showed the effectiveness and simplicity of this diagnostic process of PE in comparison with the existing scoring systems. The main strength of this approach centered on PE disease management procedures, which would reduce avoidable invasive CTA imaging and be applied as a primary prognosis of PE, hence assisting the healthcare system, clinicians, and patients by reducing costs and promoting treatment quality and patient satisfaction.

Metabolic reprogramming-related gene classifier distinguishes malignant from the benign pulmonary nodules

The current existing classifiers for distinguishing malignant from benign pulmonary nodules is limited by effectiveness or clinical practicality. In our study, we aimed to develop and validate a gene classifier for lung cancer diagnosis. To identify the genes involved in this process, we used the weighted gene co-expression network analysis to analyze gene expression datasets from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO). We identified the three most relevant modules associated with malignant nodules and performed functional enrichment analysis on them. The results indicated significant involvement in metabolic, immune-related, cell cycle, and viral-related processes. All three modules showed enrichment in metabolic reprogramming pathways. Based on these genes, we intersected genes from the three modules with metabolic reprogramming-related genes and further intersected with differentially expressed genes to get 78 genes. After machine learning algorithms and manual selection, we finally got a nine-gene classifier consisting of SEC24D, RPSA, PSME3, PSMD8, PSMB7, NCOA1, MED12, LPCAT1, and AKR1C3. Our developed and validated classifier-based model demonstrated good discrimination, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.763 in the development cohort, 0.744 in the internal validation cohort, and 0.718 in the external validation cohort, and outperformed previous clinical models. Moreover, the addition of nodule size improved the predictive capability of the classifier. We further verify the expression of the gene in the classifier using TCGA lung cancer samples and found eight of the genes showed significant differential expression in lung adenocarcinoma while all nine genes showed significant differential expression in lung squamous carcinoma. Our findings underscore the significance of metabolic reprogramming pathways in patients with malignant pulmonary nodules, and our gene classifier can assist clinicians in differentiating benign from malignant pulmonary nodules in clinical settings.

Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Background

Lung cancer screening is still in an early phase compared to other cancer screening programs, despite its high lethality particularly when diagnosed late. Achieving early diagnosis is crucial to obtain optimal outcomes.

Summary

In this review, we will address the current evidence on lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and its impact on mortality reduction, existing screening recommendations, patient eligibility criteria, screening frequency and duration, benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness and some insights on lung cancer screening implementation and adoption. Additionally, new non-imaging, noninvasive biomarkers with high diagnostic potential are also briefly highlighted.

Key Messages

LDCT screening in a prespecified population based on age and smoking history proved to reduce lung cancer mortality. Optimization of the target population and management of LDCT pitfalls can further improve lung cancer screening efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Novel screening technologies and biomarkers being studied can potentially be game-changers in lung cancer screening and diagnosis.

Is Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Associated with Patient-Centered Outcomes? A Multi-institutional Cohort Study

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate that clinicians use a shared decision-making interaction to provide information about the harms and benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS). Methods. We enrolled patients from 3 geographically diverse medical centers after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving a low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. We performed the primary analysis based on the primary knowledge question, "Which of these conditions do you think that the CT scan screens for?" We used the knowledge summary score in secondary analyses. We evaluated LCS care experience by using validated instruments to measure participant-reported communication quality (Consultation Care Measure), perception of the primary LCS clinician (Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems), and decision conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Results. Of the 409 participants, 44% correctly answered the primary LCS knowledge question. Clinician communication quality was rated positively by 93% of participants. Most (93%) participants rated their LCS clinician as good. Only 14% reported decision conflict. Correctly answering the primary LCS knowledge question was associated with higher patient-clinician communication quality scores (b = 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.1, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.03) and higher LCS clinician ratings (b = 0.4; 95% CI [0.0, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.02) but not with decision conflict. In secondary analyses, higher total LCS knowledge score was associated with lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores (b = -2.2; 95% CI [-3.4, -0.9]; R 2 change = 0.24), indicating lower decision conflict. Conclusions. After an LCS decision-making interaction, many patients do not retain basic knowledge about LCS but nevertheless had low levels of decision conflict. Primary LCS knowledge may be important but insufficient to ensure high-quality, patient-centered LCS care.

Highlights

Survey of patients with a lung cancer screening (LCS) decision-making interaction.Only 44% of patients correctly answered the knowledge question about LCS.Primary LCS knowledge was not associated with decision conflict.Patient knowledge about LCS may not equate to high-quality patient-centered care.

Prognostic role of CRABP2 in lung cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of cellular retinoic acid-binding protein 2 (CRABP2), in lung cancer patients remains to be uncertained. Therefore, our research attempted to assess the relationship between CRABP2 and survival analysis in lung cancer patients through meta-analysis.

METHOD

Related literature retrieved from Cochrane Library, Ovid, Embase, PubMed, the CNKI, and the Web of Science. The latest update of the search was May 1, 2023. The outcome indicators included as effective measures in the study were hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Stata 12.0 software was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

A total of4 studies were finally enrolled in our meta-analysis. The increased plasma level of CRABP2 predicted poor OS in lung cancer patient with a combined HR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.00-1.30), and were not associated with poor PFS with combined HR: 1.15% CI: 0.63-2.09) in lung cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis found the increased plasma level of CRABP2 was associated with poor OS independently in NSCLC patients. The plasma CRABP2 level may be an indicator of biological aggressiveness of the tumor. Our research was promising regarding the feasibility and utility of plasma CRABP2 as a novel prognostic biomarker in NSCLC, and the findings warrant further investigation.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for invasiveness of pure ground-glass nodules based on a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Assessing the aggressiveness of pure ground glass nodules early on significantly aids in making informed clinical decisions.

OBJECTIVE

Developing a predictive model to assess the aggressiveness of pure ground glass nodules in lung adenocarcinoma is the study's goal.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for studies on the relationship between computed tomography(CT) characteristics and the aggressiveness of pure ground glass nodules was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, and CBM, up to December 20, 2023. Two independent researchers were responsible for screening literature, extracting data, and assessing the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0, with the training data derived from this analysis. To identify publication bias, Funnel plots and Egger tests and Begg test were employed. This meta-analysis facilitated the creation of a risk prediction model for invasive adenocarcinoma in pure ground glass nodules. Data on clinical presentation and CT imaging features of patients treated surgically for these nodules at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, from September 2020 to September 2023, were compiled and scrutinized using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The model's effectiveness for predicting invasive adenocarcinoma risk in pure ground glass nodules was validated using ROC curves, calibration curves, and decision analysis curves.

RESULTS

In this analysis, 17 studies were incorporated. Key variables included in the model were the largest diameter of the lesion, average CT value, presence of pleural traction, and spiculation. The derived formula from the meta-analysis was: 1.16×the largest lesion diameter + 0.01 × the average CT value + 0.66 × pleural traction + 0.44 × spiculation. This model underwent validation using an external set of 512 pure ground glass nodules, demonstrating good diagnostic performance with an ROC curve area of 0.880 (95% CI: 0.852-0.909). The calibration curve indicated accurate predictions, and the decision analysis curve suggested high clinical applicability of the model.

CONCLUSION

We established a predictive model for determining the invasiveness of pure ground-glass nodules, incorporating four key radiological indicators. This model is both straightforward and effective for identifying patients with a high likelihood of invasive adenocarcinoma.

Which is a real valuable screening tool for lung cancer and measure thoracic diseases, chest radiography or low-dose computed tomography?: A review on the current status of Japan and other countries

Chest radiography (CR) has been used as a screening tool for lung cancer and the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is not recommended in Japan. We need to reconsider whether CR really contributes to the early detection of lung cancer. In addition, we have not well discussed about other major thoracic disease detection by CR and LDCT compared with lung cancer despite of its high frequency. We review the usefulness of CR and LDCT as veridical screening tools for lung cancer and other thoracic diseases. In the case of lung cancer, many studies showed that LDCT has capability of early detection and improving outcomes compared with CR. Recent large randomized trial also supports former results. In the case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), LDCT contributes to early detection and leads to the implementation of smoking cessation treatments. In the case of pulmonary infections, LDCT can reveal tiny inflammatory changes that are not observed on CR, though many of these cases improve spontaneously. Therefore, LDCT screening for pulmonary infections may be less useful. CR screening is more suitable for the detection of pulmonary infections. In the case of cardiovascular disease (CVD), CR may be a better screening tool for detecting cardiomegaly, whereas LDCT may be a more useful tool for detecting vascular changes. Therefore, the current status of thoracic disease screening is that LDCT may be a better screening tool for detecting lung cancer, COPD, and vascular changes. CR may be a suitable screening tool for pulmonary infections and cardiomegaly.

Characteristics of Singapore lung cancer patients who miss out on lung cancer screening recommendations

INTRODUCTION

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) identified individuals at high risk for lung cancer and showed that serial low-dose helical computed tomography could identify lung cancer at an earlier stage, leading to mortality reduction. However, there is little evidence regarding the effectiveness of the NLST criteria for the Asian population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective audit in our hospital from January 2018 to December 2018, with the aim to describe the characteristics of patients diagnosed with lung cancer and to identify patients who would miss out on lung cancer screening when the NLST criteria was applied.

RESULTS

We found that only 38.1% of our cohort who were diagnosed with lung cancer met the NLST criteria strictly by age and smoking status. Patients who met the screening criteria would have derived significant benefits from it, as 85.4% of our patients had presented at an advanced stage and 54.6% died within 1 year. When the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria was applied, it increased the sensitivity of lung cancer diagnosis to 58.7%. Only 15.5% of the female patients with lung cancer met the NLST criteria; their low smoking quantity was a significant contributing factor for exclusion.

CONCLUSION

The majority of Singapore patients diagnosed with lung cancer, especially females, would not have been identified with the NLST criteria. However, those who met the inclusion criteria would have benefited greatly from screening. Extending the screening age upper limit may yield benefits and improved sensitivity in the Singapore context.

Association of patient and health care organization factors with incidental nodule guidelines adherence: A multi-system observational study

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations are increasingly developing systems to ensure patients with pulmonary nodules receive guideline-adherent care. Our goal was to determine patient and organization factors that are associated with radiologist adherence as well as clinician and patient concordance to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines for incidental pulmonary nodule follow-up.

MATERIALS

Trained researchers abstracted data from the electronic health record from two Veterans Affairs health care systems for patients with incidental pulmonary nodules as identified by interpreting radiologists from 2008 to 2016.

METHODS

We classified radiology reports and patient follow-up into two categories. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was the agreement between the radiologist's recommendation in the computed tomography report and the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines. Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance was agreement between patient follow-up and the guidelines. We calculated multivariable-adjusted predicted probabilities for factors associated with Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence and Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance.

RESULTS

Among 3150 patients, 69% of radiologist recommendations were adherent to 2005 Fleischner guidelines, 4% were more aggressive, and 27% recommended less aggressive follow-up. Overall, only 48% of patients underwent follow-up concordant with 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines, 37% had less aggressive follow-up, and 15% had more aggressive follow-up. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was associated with Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance with evidence for effect modification by health care system.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and patients seem to follow radiologists' recommendations but often do not obtain concordant follow-up, likely due to downstream differential processes in each health care system. Health care organizations need to develop comprehensive and rigorous tools to ensure high levels of appropriate follow-up for patients with pulmonary nodules.

Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study

Introduction

Low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and lung nodule programs (LNP) promote early lung cancer detection, improve survival; Multidisciplinary Care Programs (MDC) promote guideline-concordant care. The impact of such program-based care on "real-world" lung cancer survival is unquantified. We evaluated outcomes of lung cancer care delivered through structured programs in a community health care system.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study linking institutional prospective observational LDCT, LNP and MDC databases with Tumor Registry of Baptist Cancer Center facilities. We categorized all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2021 into program-based care versus non-program-based care cohorts. We compared patient characteristics, stage distribution, treatment modalities, survival and mortality in each pathway of care.

Results

Of 12,148 patients, 237, 1,165, 1,140 and 9,606 were diagnosed through the LDCT, LNP, MDC or no program, respectively; non-program-based care sequentially diminished from 96.3% to 66.5%, diagnosis through LDCT increased from 0.5% to 7.1%, LNP from 3.5% to 20.8%; and MDC alone decreased from a high of 12.8% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2021. Program-based care was associated with earlier stage (p < 0.001), higher surgical resection rates (p < 0.001), greater use of adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001), better aggregate and stage-stratified survival (p < 0.001), and lower all-cause and lung cancer-specific mortality (p < 0.001). Recipients of non-program-based care were considerably less likely to receive lung cancer treatment; results remained consistent when patients receiving no treatment were excluded.

Conclusions

Program-based care was associated with substantially better survival. Increasing access to program-based care should be explored as a matter of urgent public policy.

Tobacco treatment in the setting of lung cancer screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung cancer screening by low-dose CT is an increasingly implemented preventive medicine tool. Screening for lung cancer is incomplete without addressing problematic tobacco use, the greatest modifiable risk factor in the development of lung cancer. This review describes recent work related to lung cancer screening and treatment of tobacco use in that context.

RECENT FINDINGS

Implementation of lung cancer screening demonstrates socioeconomic disparities in terms of adherence to screening as well as likelihood of successful tobacco dependence treatment. Active tobacco dependence is a common comorbidity for patients undergoing lung cancer screening. The optimal implementation of tobacco dependence treatment in the context of lung cancer screening is still an area of active investigation.

SUMMARY

Treatment of tobacco dependence at time of lung cancer screening is a major opportunity for clinicians to intervene to reduce the major modifiable risk factor for lung cancer, tobacco use. Providing comprehensive tobacco dependence treatment is most effective using combination pharmacologic and behavioral interventions. Practices providing comprehensive treatment will benefit from accurate documentation for billing and coding and supplementing with external resources such as state Quit Lines.

Age-related Muscle Fat Infiltration in Lung Screening Participants: Impact of Smoking Cessation

Rationale

Skeletal muscle fat infiltration progresses with aging and is worsened among individuals with a history of cigarette smoking. Many negative impacts of smoking on muscles are likely reversible with smoking cessation.

Objectives

To determine if the progression of skeletal muscle fat infiltration with aging is altered by smoking cessation among lung cancer screening participants.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis based on the National Lung Screening Trial. Skeletal muscle attenuation in Hounsfield unit (HU) was derived from the baseline and follow-up low-dose CT scans using a previously validated artificial intelligence algorithm. Lower attenuation indicates greater fatty infiltration. Linear mixed-effects models were constructed to evaluate the associations between smoking status and the muscle attenuation trajectory.

Measurements and Main Results

Of 19,019 included participants (age: 61 years, 5 [SD]; 11,290 males), 8,971 (47.2%) were actively smoking cigarettes. Accounting for body mass index, pack-years, percent emphysema, and other confounding factors, actively smoking predicted a lower attenuation in both males (β0 =-0.88 HU, P<.001) and females (β0 =-0.69 HU, P<.001), and an accelerated muscle attenuation decline-rate in males (β1=-0.08 HU/y, P<.05). Age-stratified analyses indicated that the accelerated muscle attenuation decline associated with smoking likely occurred at younger age, especially in females.

Conclusions

Among lung cancer screening participants, active cigarette smoking was associated with greater skeletal muscle fat infiltration in both males and females, and accelerated muscle adipose accumulation rate in males. These findings support the important role of smoking cessation in preserving muscle health.

National Survey of Lung Cancer Screening Practices in Veterans Health Administration Facilities

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening can save lives through the early detection of lung cancer, and professional societies recommend key lung cancer screening program components to ensure high-quality screening. Yet, little is known about the key components that comprise the various screening program models in routine clinical settings. The objective was to compare the utilization of these key components across centralized, hybrid, and decentralized lung cancer screening programs.

METHODS

The survey was designed to identify current structures and processes of lung cancer screening programs. It was administered electronically to Veterans Health Administration facilities nationally (N=122) between August and December 2021. Results were analyzed between March and August 2022 and stratified by self-identified lung cancer screening program type, and we tested the hypothesis that centralized screening programs would be more likely to have implemented practices that support lung cancer screening, followed by hybrid and decentralized programs, using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 (56.6%) facilities completed the survey, and respondents were lung cancer screening coordinators (39.1%), pulmonologists (33.3%), and oncologists (10.1%). Facilities most frequently self-identified as having a centralized (37.7%) program model, followed by identifying as having hybrid (30.4%) and decentralized (20.3%) programs. There was varying implementation of practices to support lung cancer screening, with hybrid and decentralized programs less likely to have lung cancer screening registries, lung cancer screening steering committees, or dedicated lung cancer screening coordinators.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is overlap between the components of various lung cancer screening program types, centralized programs more frequently implemented practices before the initial screening to support lung cancer screening. This work provides a path for future investigations to identify which lung cancer screening practices are effective to improve lung cancer screening outcomes, which could help inform implementation in settings with limited resources.

Individual- and neighborhood-level characteristics of lung cancer screening participants undergoing telemedicine shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality in clinical trial settings, many questions remain about how to implement high-quality LCS in real-world programs. With the increasing use of telemedicine in healthcare, studies examining this approach in the context of LCS are urgently needed. We aimed to identify sociodemographic and other factors associated with screening completion among individuals undergoing telemedicine Shared Decision Making (SDM) for LCS.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined patients who completed Shared Decision Making (SDM) via telemedicine between May 4, 2020 - March 18, 2021 in a centralized LCS program. Individuals were categorized into Complete Screening vs. Incomplete Screening subgroups based on the status of subsequent LDCT completion. A multi-level, multivariate model was constructed to identify factors associated with incomplete screening.

RESULTS

Among individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM during the study period, 20.6% did not complete a LDCT scan. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that Black/African-American race, Medicaid insurance status, and new patient type were associated with greater odds of incomplete screening. On multi-level, multivariate analysis, individuals who were new patients undergoing baseline LDCT or resided in a census tract with a high level of socioeconomic deprivation had significantly higher odds of incomplete screening. Individuals with a greater level of education experienced lower odds of incomplete screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM for LCS, predictors of incomplete screening included low education, high neighborhood-level deprivation, and new patient type. Future research should focus on testing implementation strategies to improve LDCT completion rates while leveraging telemedicine for high-quality LCS.

Factors associated with adherence to provider referrals for lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography before and during COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer has been the leading cause of American deaths from cancer. Although Medicare started covering lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in 2015, the uptake of LDCT-LCS remains low. This study examines the changes in adherence to provider referrals for LDCT-LCS and the factors at patient, provider, and health system levels that influence the completion rate of LDCT-LCS orders before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Our study examined electronic health record data (December 2013 - December 2020) from a large, community-based clinical healthcare delivery system in California. We plotted monthly trends in the frequency of LDCT-LCS orders and completion rate and compared the annual LDCT-LCS completion rate between LCS-eligible, LCS-ineligible, and unknown eligibility groups. We then explored multilevel factors associated with the completion of LDCT-LCS orders using hierarchical generalized linear models.

RESULTS

There was an increase in LDCT-LCS orders (N = 12,469) from 2013 to 2019, followed by a sharp decline in March 2020 due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, LDCT-LCS orders slowly increased again in June 2020. The completion rate of LDCT-LCS increased from 0% in December 2013 to approximately 70% in 2018-2019 but declined to 50-60% in 2020 during the pandemic. Ineligible patients had lower completion rates of LDCT-LCS. Patients who were new to the healthcare system, Black, received the LDCT-LCS order in the first few years after Medicare coverage (2016 or 2017), during the pandemic, had major comorbidities, and smoked less than 30 pack-years were less likely to complete an order. Patients were more likely to complete LDCT-LCS orders if they were younger, received the LDCT-LCS order from a physician (vs. nonphysician provider), from family medicine or other specialties (vs. internal medicine), or saw a provider with more experience in LDCT-LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic largely decreased the volume of LDCT-LCS orders, but rates have since been slowing recovering. Future interventions to improve lung cancer screening should consider doing more targeted outreach to new patients and Black patients as well as providing additional education to nonphysician practitioners and those providers with lower rates of LDCT-LCS referral orders.

High risk lung nodule: A multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and management

Pulmonary nodules are often discovered incidentally during CT scans performed for other reasons. While the vast majority of nodules are benign, a small percentage may represent early-stage lung cancer with the potential for curative treatments. With the growing use of CT for both clinical purposes and lung cancer screening, the number of pulmonary nodules detected is expected to increase substantially. Despite well-established guidelines, many nodules do not receive proper evaluation due to a variety of factors, including inadequate coordination of care and financial and social barriers. To address this quality gap, novel approaches such as multidisciplinary nodule clinics and multidisciplinary boards may be necessary. As pulmonary nodules may indicate early-stage lung cancer, it is crucial to adopt a risk-stratified approach to identify potential lung cancers at an early stage, while minimizing the risk of harm and expense associated with over investigation of low-risk nodules. This article, authored by multiple specialists involved in nodule management, delves into the diagnostic approach to lung nodules. It covers the process of determining whether a patient requires tissue sampling or continued surveillance. Additionally, the article provides an in-depth examination of the various biopsy and therapeutic options available for malignant lung nodules. The article also emphasizes the significance of early detection in reducing lung cancer mortality, especially among high-risk populations. Furthermore, it addresses the creation of a comprehensive lung nodule program, which involves smoking cessation, lung cancer screening, and systematic evaluation and follow-up of both incidental and screen-detected nodules.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

GM, Sasidharan B, Thangakunam B, Pavamani S, Isiah R, Joel A, Bhat TA. Imaging Recommendations for Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Lung Cancer

Globally and in India, lung cancer is one of the leading malignancies in terms of incidence and mortality. Smoking and environmental pollution are the common risk factors for developing lung cancer. Traditionally, lung cancer is divided into small cell and nonsmall cell types, with nonsmall cell carcinomas including squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and large cell carcinoma.

In this review article, we describe the imaging recommendations and findings in the diagnosis, staging, and management of lung cancer, including the imaging of treatment-related complications.

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.

A Quick Reference Guide for Incidental Findings on Lung Cancer Screening CT Examinations

PURPOSE

The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk individuals since 2013. Because LDCT encompasses the lower neck, chest, and upper abdomen, many incidental findings (IFs) are detected. The authors created a quick reference guide to describe common IFs in LCS to assist LCS program navigators and ordering providers in managing the care continuum in LCS.

METHODS

The ACR IF white papers were reviewed for findings on LDCT that were age appropriate for LCS. A draft guide was created on the basis of recommendations in the IF white papers, the medical literature, and input from subspecialty content experts. The draft was piloted with LCS program navigators recruited through contacts by the ACR LCS Steering Committee. The navigators completed a survey on overall usefulness, clarity, adequacy of content, and user experience with the guide.

RESULTS

Seven anatomic regions including 15 discrete organs with 45 management recommendations were identified as relevant to the age of individuals eligible for LCS. The draft was piloted by 49 LCS program navigators from 32 facilities. The guide was rated as useful and clear by 95% of users. No unexpected or adverse experiences were reported in using the guide. On the basis of feedback, relevant sections were reviewed and edited.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACR Lung Cancer Screening CT Incidental Findings Quick Reference Guide outlines the common IFs in LCS and can serve as an easy-to-use resource for ordering providers and LCS program navigators to help guide management.

Lung Cancer Screening Outreach Program in an Urban Native American Clinic

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate uptake of lung cancer screening in an urban Native American clinic using 2 culturally targeted promotion strategies.

METHODS

Patients eligible for lung cancer screening from July 2019 to July 2021 were randomized to receive either a single culturally-targeted mailer from the clinic regarding possible eligibility for screening, or the same mailer plus a follow-up text message and additional mailing.

RESULTS

Overall, there were low rates of shared decision-making visit scheduling (8.5%) with no difference between promotion strategy groups (9.4% in control group vs 7.7% in culturally-targeted outreach group). Only about 50% of the lung cancer screening CT exams ordered were completed and returned to the clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

While there was no difference between arms in this intervention, 8.5% of the sample did complete a shared decision-making visit after these low-cost interventions. The gap between the number of screening CTs ordered and number who completed the CT represents an area where further interventions should focus.

Expanding the Reach and Grasp of Lung Cancer Screening

Low-dose computer tomographic (LDCT) lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality among high-risk individuals, but implementation has been challenging. Despite health insurance coverage for lung cancer screening in the United States since 2015, fewer than 10% of eligible persons have participated; striking geographic, racial, and socioeconomic disparities were already evident, especially in the populations at greatest risk of lung cancer and, therefore, most likely to benefit from screening; and adherence to subsequent testing is significantly lower than that reported in clinical trials, potentially reducing the realized benefit. Lung cancer screening is a covered health care benefit in very few countries. Obtaining the full population-level benefit of lung cancer screening will require improved participation of already eligible persons (the grasp of screening) and improved eligibility criteria that more closely match up with the full spectrum of persons at risk (the reach of screening), irrespective of smoking history. We used the socioecological framework of health care to systematically review implementation barriers to lung cancer screening and discuss multilevel solutions. We also discussed guideline-concordant management of incidentally detected lung nodules as a complementary approach to early lung cancer detection that can extend the reach and strengthen the grasp of screening. Furthermore, we discussed ongoing efforts in Asia to explore the possibility of LDCT screening in populations in whom lung cancer risk is relatively independent of smoking. Finally, we summarized innovative technological solutions, including biomarker selection and artificial intelligence strategies, to improve the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in diverse populations.

Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the United States and globally with the majority of lung cancer cases attributable to cigarette smoking. Given the high societal and personal cost of a diagnosis of lung cancer including that most cases of lung cancer when diagnosed are found at a late stage, work over the past 40 years has aimed to detect lung cancer earlier when curative treatment is possible. Screening trials using chest radiography and sputum failed to show a reduction in lung cancer mortality however multiple studies using low dose CT have shown the ability to detect lung cancer early and a survival benefit to those screened. This review will discuss the history of lung cancer screening, current recommendations and screening guidelines, and implementation and components of a lung cancer screening program.

Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer deaths by early detection. The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with LDCT in adults of age 50 years to 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and are currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years. The implementation of a lung-cancer-screening program is complex. High-quality screening requires the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. The aim of a screening program is to find balance between mortality reduction and avoiding potential harms related to false-positive findings, overdiagnosis, invasive procedures, and radiation exposure. Components and processes of a high-quality lung-cancer-screening program include the identification of eligible individuals, shared decision-making, performing and reporting LDCT results, management of screen-detected lung nodules and non-nodule findings, smoking cessation, ensuring adherence, data collection, and quality improvement.

Access to Care Limits Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in an Urban Safety Net Hospital

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) results in earlier detection of malignancy and decreases mortality but requires access to care to benefit. We assessed factors associated with timing of lung cancer diagnosis in the absence of systematic LCS in an urban safety net hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of patients with pathologic diagnosis and/or staging of lung cancer at our institution between 2015 and 2018. Patient socio-demographics, disease characteristics, factors associated with access to medical care, and time point and process by which the patient accessed care were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 223 patients were identified with median age of 63 years and 57.8% male predominance. Racial distribution was 22.9%, 20.2%, 17.1%, and 9.4% for Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic, respectively. Stage at diagnosis was 8.1%, 4.5%, 17.0%, and 60.5% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Medicaid (59.6%) and Medicare/Medicaid (17.1%) were the most common insurance types, while 16.1% had no insurance. A majority (54.3%) had no established primary care provider (PCP), and only 17.9% had an in-network PCP. Patients without PCPs were more likely to have diagnostic evaluation initiated from Emergency Department or Urgent Care settings (95.0% vs 50.1%, P < .01) and present with later stage disease (92.7% vs 77.8%, P < .01). Of the 83 patients that met age and smoking history LCS criteria, only 33.7% (12.6% of total) also had an in-network PCP.

CONCLUSION

Absence of established PCPs is associated with later stage presentation of lung cancer and may limit system- level benefits of LCS implementation.

"It's a decision I have to make": Patient perspectives on smoking and cessation after lung cancer screening decisions

Few studies exist showing that involvement in lung cancer screening (LCS) leads to a change in rates of cigarette smoking. We investigated LCS longitudinally to determine whether teachable moments for smoking cessation occur downstream from the initial provider-patient LCS shared decision-making discussion and self-reported effects on smoking behaviors. We performed up to two successive semi-structured interviews to assess the experiences of 39 individuals who formerly or currently smoked cigarettes who underwent LCS decision-making discussions performed during routine care from three established US medical center LCS programs.

The majority of those who remembered hearing about the importance of smoking cessation after LCS-related encounters did not report communication about smoking influencing their motivation to quit or abstain from smoking, including patients who were found to have pulmonary nodules. Patients experienced little distress related to LCS discussions. Patients reported that there were other, more significant, reasons for quitting or abstinence. They recommended clinicians continue to ask about smoking at every clinical encounter, provide information comparing the benefits of LCS with those of quitting smoking, and have clinicians help them identify triggers or other motivators for improving smoking behaviors. Our findings suggest that there may be other teachable moment opportunities outside of LCS processes that could be utilized to motivate smoking reduction or cessation, or LCS processes could be improved to integrate cessation resources.

Patient Experience of Managing Adherence to Repeat Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is a process involving multiple low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans over multiple years. While adherence to recommended follow-up is critical in reducing lung cancer mortality, little is known about factors influencing adherence following the initial LDCT scan. The purpose of this study was to examine patients' and providers' depictions of continued screening and their understandings of patients' decisions to return for follow-up. Qualitative methodology involves interviews with patients about their understanding of the screening process and perceptions of lung cancer risk, including motivations to adhere to follow-up screening and surveillance. Analysis of interview transcripts followed the general procedures of grounded theory methodology. Patient adherence to LCS was influenced by their understanding of the process of screening, and their expectations for the next steps. Perceptions of lung cancer risk and associated motivation were not static and changed throughout the screening process. Recognizing that patients' motivations may be dynamic over the course of screening and surveillance will assist providers in helping patients make decisions regarding continued engagement with LCS.

Hospitalization as an opportunity to engage underserved individuals in shared decision-making for lung cancer screening: results from two randomized pilot trials

PURPOSE

Medicare requires tobacco dependence counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement. We hypothesized that initiating SDM during inpatient tobacco treatment visits would increase LCS among patients with barriers to proactively seeking outpatient preventive care.

METHODS

We collected baseline assessments and performed two pilot randomized trials at our safety-net hospital. Pilot 1 tested feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a nurse practitioner initiating SDM for LCS during hospitalization (Inpatient SDM). We collected qualitative data on barriers encountered during Pilot 1. Pilot 2 added a community health worker (CHW) to address barriers to LCS completion (Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation). For both studies, preliminary efficacy was an intention-to-treat analysis of LCS completion at 3 months between intervention and comparator (furnishing of LCS decision aid only) groups.

RESULTS

Baseline assessments showed that patients preferred in-person LCS discussions versus self-reviewing materials; overall 20% had difficulty understanding written information. In Pilot 1, 4% (2/52) in Inpatient SDM versus 2% (1/48, comparator) completed LCS (p = 0.6), despite 89% (89/100) desiring LCS. Primary care providers noted that competing priorities and patient factors (e.g., social barriers to keeping appointments) prevented the intervention from working as intended. In Pilot 2, 50% (5/10) in Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation versus 9% (1/11, comparator) completed LCS (p < 0.05). Many patients were ineligible due to recent diagnostic chest CT (Pilot 1: 255/659; Pilot 2: 239/527).

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation shows promise to improve LCS rates among underserved patients who smoke, but feasibility is limited by recent diagnostic chest CT among inpatients. Implementing CHW-navigation in other clinical settings may facilitate LCS for underserved patients.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276806 (8 September 2017); NCT03793894 (4 January 2019).

Invasive Procedures and Associated Complications After Initial Lung Cancer Screening in a National Cohort of Veterans

BACKGROUND

Little is known about rates of invasive procedures and associated complications after lung cancer screening (LCS) in nontrial settings.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the frequency of invasive procedures, complication rates, and factors associated with complications in a national sample of veterans screened for lung cancer?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of veterans who underwent LCS in any Veterans Health Administration (VA) facility between 2013 and 2019 and identified veterans who underwent invasive procedures within 10 months of initial LCS. The primary outcome was presence of a complication within 10 days after an invasive procedure. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine patient- and facility-level factors associated with complications resulting from an invasive procedure.

RESULTS

Our cohort of 82,641 veterans who underwent LCS was older, more racially diverse, and had more comorbidities than National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants. Overall, 1,741 veterans (2.1%) underwent an invasive procedure after initial screening, including 856 (42.3%) bronchoscopies, 490 (24.2%) transthoracic needle biopsies, and 423 (20.9%) thoracic surgeries. Among veterans who underwent procedures, 151 (8.7%) experienced a major complication (eg, respiratory failure, prolonged hospitalization) and an additional 203 (11.7%) experienced an intermediate complication (eg, pneumothorax, pleural effusion). Veterans who underwent thoracic surgery (OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 5.48-10.81), underwent multiple nonsurgical procedures (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), or carried a dementia diagnosis (OR, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.79-8.52) were more likely to experience complications. Invasive procedures were performed less often than in the NLST (2.1% vs 4.2%), but veterans were more likely to experience complications after each type of procedure.

INTERPRETATION

These findings may reflect a higher threshold to perform procedures in veteran populations with multiple comorbidities and higher risks of complications. Future work should focus on optimizing the identification of patients whose chance of benefit likely outweighs the complication risks.

Key Informants' Perspectives on Implementing a Comprehensive Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Safety Net Healthcare System: Leadership, Successes, and Barriers

Implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) in a safety net healthcare system is challenging. This study examined factors associated with feasibility and potential facilitators and barriers which might affect the implementation of a new evidence-based comprehensive primary care and community health-based program aiming to promote efficient and equitable delivery of Lung Cancer Screening and Tobacco Cessation (LCS-TC). Fifty-three key informants were interviewed. Informants discussed their perceptions of adoption of screening and appropriate referral practices across 15 community health centers. They also identified barriers and facilitators to implementing the LCS-TC program. Interview data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Three major themes representing facilitators and barriers were identified: (1) Allocation of resources and services coverage; (2) need for a collaborative process to engage stakeholders and identify champions; and (3) stakeholders need different types of evidence to support implementation. The top three activities identified as essential for success included provision of sufficient resources for radiologic screening (30%); using non-physician staff for screening (30%); and minimizing the time healthcare providers need to contribute (23%). Conversely, the top three barriers were lack of resources for screening and treatment (60%); insufficient time to address complex patient problems (36%); and perceived lack of patient buy-in (30%). Models for EBP implementation provide stepwise guidance; however, particular contextual factors act as facilitators or barriers to the process. Findings inform EBP implementation efforts regarding resources and key barriers to success around organizational-level supports and promotion of suitable EBP programs.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Lung Cancer Screening, Version 1.2022

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening recommend criteria for selecting individuals for screening and provide recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of lung nodules found during initial and subsequent screening. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening.

Lung Cancer Diagnosed Through Screening, Lung Nodule, and Neither Program: A Prospective Observational Study of the Detecting Early Lung Cancer (DELUGE) in the Mississippi Delta Cohort

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening saves lives, but implementation is challenging. We evaluated two approaches to early lung cancer detection-low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and program-based management of incidentally detected lung nodules.

METHODS

A prospective observational study enrolled patients in the early detection programs. For context, we compared them with patients managed in a Multidisciplinary Care Program. We compared clinical stage distribution, surgical resection rates, 3- and 5-year survival rates, and eligibility for LDCT screening of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

RESULTS

From 2015 to May 2021, 22,886 patients were enrolled: 5,659 in LDCT, 15,461 in Lung Nodule, and 1,766 in Multidisciplinary Care. Of 150, 698, and 1,010 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in the respective programs, 61%, 60%, and 44% were diagnosed at clinical stage I or II, whereas 19%, 20%, and 29% were stage IV (P = .0005); 47%, 42%, and 32% had curative-intent surgery (P < .0001); aggregate 3-year overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 73 to 88) versus 64% (60 to 68) versus 49% (46 to 53); 5-year overall survival rates were 76% (67 to 87) versus 60% (56 to 65) versus 44% (40 to 48), respectively. Only 46% of 1,858 patients with lung cancer would have been deemed eligible for LDCT by US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria, and 54% by 2021 criteria. Even if all eligible patients by USPSTF 2021 criteria had been enrolled into LDCT, the Nodule Program would have detected 20% of the stage I-II lung cancer in the entire cohort.

CONCLUSION

LDCT and Lung Nodule Programs are complementary, expanding access to early lung cancer detection and curative treatment to different-risk populations. Implementing Lung Nodule Programs may alleviate emerging disparities in access to early lung cancer detection.

Prognostic Impact of the Angiogenic Gene POSTN and Its Related Genes on Lung Adenocarcinoma

Background

The function of angiogenesis-related genes (ARGs) in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) remains poorly documented. This study was designed to reveal ARGs in LUAD and related networks.

Methods

We worked with sequencing data and clinical information pertaining to LUAD from public databases. ARGs were retrieved from the HALLMARK_ANGIOGENESIS gene set. Differential analysis and Kaplan–Meier (K–M) analysis were performed to authenticate the ARGs associated with LUAD. Weighted gene correlation network analysis was performed on the mining hub genes linked to the abovementioned genes, and functional enrichment analysis was done. Subsequently, Cox regression analyses were used to construct the prognostic gene. POSTN and microvessel density were detected using immunohistochemistry.

Results

POSTN, an ARG that was highly expressed in patients with LUAD and was closely associated with their weak overall survival was identified. Differentially expressed genes associated with POSTN were mainly enriched in entries related to the tubulointerstitial system, immune response, and epithelial cells. A positive correlation was demonstrated between POSTN expression and tumor microvessel density in LUAD. Subsequently, a prognostic gene signature was constructed and revealed that 4 genes may predict the survival of LUAD patients. Furthermore, the ESTIMATE and CIBERSORT analyses suggested that our risk scoring system may be implicated in altering the immune microenvironment of patients with LUAD. Finally, a ceRNA network was constructed based on the prognostic genes, and the regulatory networks were examined.

Conclusion

POSTN, a novel prognostic gene signature associated with ARGs, was constructed for the prognosis of patients with LUAD. This signature may alter the immune microenvironment by modulating the activation of the tubulointerstitial system, epithelial cells, and immune cells, ultimately affecting patient survival.

Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study to assess the importance of coexisting chronic conditions to clinical practice and policy: protocol for a multicentre observational study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA and worldwide, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to improve lung cancer outcomes. A critical question is whether the ratio of potential benefits to harms found in prior LCS trials applies to an older and potentially sicker population. The Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study will help close this knowledge gap by leveraging real-world data to fully characterise LCS recipients. The principal goal of the PLuS study is to characterise the comorbidity burden of individuals undergoing LCS and quantify the benefits and harms of LCS to enable informed decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PLuS is a multicentre observational study designed to assemble an LCS cohort from the electronic health records of ~40 000 individuals undergoing annual LCS with LDCT from 2016 to 2022. Data will be integrated into a unified repository to (1) examine the burden of multimorbidity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age; (2) quantify potential benefits and harms; and (3) use the observational data with validated simulation models in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to provide LCS outcomes in the real-world US population. We will fit a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted ORs of comorbidity, functional limitations and impaired pulmonary function adjusted for relevant covariates. We will also estimate the cumulative risk of LCS outcomes using discrete-time survival models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine observational data and simulation models to estimate the long-term impact of LCS with LDCT.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board and VA Portland Health Care System. The results will be disseminated through publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Safety considerations include protection of patient confidentiality.

Challenges in initiating a lung cancer screening program: Experiences from two VA medical centers

Establishing a lung cancer screening (LCS) program is an important endeavor that delivers life-saving healthcare to an at-risk population. However, developing a comprehensive LCS program requires critical elements including obtaining institutional level buy-in, hiring necessary personnel, developing appropriate infrastructure and actively engaging primary care providers, subspecialty services, and radiology. The process required to connect such services to deliver an organized LCS program that reaches all eligible candidates must be individualized to each institution's needs and infrastructure. Here we provide detailed experiences from two successful LCS programs, one using a primary care provider-based service and the other using a consult-based service. In each case, we provide the pros and cons of each system. We propose that the decision to setup an ideal LCS program could include a hybrid design that combines aspects of each system.

Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up

Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%-18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% v >90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings - reflecting "real world" challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.

Prospective Multisite Cohort Study to Evaluate Shared Decision Making Utilization Among Individuals Screened for Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency, components of, and factors associated with shared decision-making (SDM) discussions according to electronic health record (EHR) documentation among individuals undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS).

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study was conducted of individuals undergoing LCS between February 2015 and June 2020 at four LCS centers. The primary outcome was EHR-documented SDM, defined using Medicare-designated components. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to examine predictors of EHR-documented SDM. A secondary outcome was agreement of individual's self-report of SDM and EHR-documented SDM, evaluated using Cohen's κ statistic.

RESULTS

Among screened individuals, 41.9% (243 of 580) had EHR-documented SDM, and 71.1% (295 of 415) had self-reported SDM. Decision aids were used in 55.6% of EHR-documented SDM encounters (135 of 243), and 21.8% of documented SDM encounters (53 of 243) included all Medicare-designated components. SDM was documented more frequently in individuals with body mass index ≥ 25 versus <25 kg/m² (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-2.52) and in currently versus formerly smoking individuals (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.32). Nonpulmonary referring clinicians were less likely to document SDM than pulmonary clinicians (internal medicine: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; family medicine: aOR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.14; other specialties: aOR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21). In a subset of 415 individuals, there was little agreement between individual self-report of SDM and EHR-documented SDM (κ = 0.184), with variation in agreement on the basis of referring clinician specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Although EHR-documented SDM occurred in fewer than half of individuals undergoing LCS, self-reported SDM rates were higher, suggesting that SDM may be underdocumented in the EHR. In addition, EHR-documented SDM was more likely in individuals with higher body mass index and those referred for LCS by pulmonary clinicians. These findings indicate areas for improvement in the implementation and documentation of SDM.

Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021.

Identification of pathological subtypes of early lung adenocarcinoma based on artificial intelligence parameters and CT signs

Objective: To explore the value of quantitative parameters of artificial intelligence (AI) and computed tomography (CT) signs in identifying pathological subtypes of lung adenocarcinoma appearing as ground-glass nodules (GGNs). Methods: CT images of 224 GGNs from 210 individuals were collected retrospectively and classified into atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH)/adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), and invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC) groups. AI was used to identify GGNs and to obtain quantitative parameters, and CT signs were recognized manually. The mixed predictive model based on logistic multivariate regression was built and evaluated. Results: Of the 224 GGNs, 55, 93, and 76 were AAH/AIS, MIA, and IAC, respectively. In terms of AI parameters, from AAH/AIS to MIA, and IAC, there was a gradual increase in two-dimensional mean diameter, three-dimensional mean diameter, mean CT value, maximum CT value, and volume of GGNs (all P<0.0001). Except for the CT signs of the location, and the tumor–lung interface, there were significant differences among the three groups in the density, shape, vacuolar signs, air bronchogram, lobulation, spiculation, pleural indentation, and vascular convergence signs (all P<0.05). The areas under the curve (AUC) of predictive model 1 for identifying the AAH/AIS and MIA and model 2 for identifying MIA and IAC were 0.779 and 0.918, respectively, which were greater than the quantitative parameters independently (all P<0.05). Conclusion: AI parameters are valuable for identifying subtypes of early lung adenocarcinoma and have improved diagnostic efficacy when combined with CT signs.

Building a CAT clinic - real-world systems approaches to prevention and treatment

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thrombosis. The implementation of a cancer associated thrombosis clinic can be instrumental for the prevention, early recognition, and management of venous thromboembolism in this vulnerable population. Cancer thrombosis clinics rely on a multidisciplinary approach to care and require standardization along with a dedicated team of healthcare professionals. Cancer thrombosis clinics have the potential to improve patient outcomes and lower healthcare expenditure. Herein, we describe a successful model of a cancer thrombosis clinic and highlight the potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Modeling the impact of delaying surgery for early esophageal cancer in the era of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Surgical society guidelines have recommended changing the treatment strategy for early esophageal cancer during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Delaying resection can allow for interim disease progression, but the impact of this delay on mortality is unknown. The COVID-19 infection rate at which immediate operative risk exceeds benefit is unknown. We sought to model immediate versus delayed surgical resection in a T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed, and sensitivity analyses performed. The base case was a 65-year-old male smoker presenting with cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma scheduled for esophagectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared immediate surgical resection to delayed resection after 3 months. The likelihood of key outcomes was derived from the literature where available. The outcome was 5-year overall survival.

RESULTS

Proceeding with immediate esophagectomy for the base case scenario resulted in slightly improved 5-year overall survival when compared to delaying surgery by 3 months (5-year overall survival 0.74 for immediate and 0.73 for delayed resection). In sensitivity analyses, a delayed approach became preferred when the probability of perioperative COVID-19 infection increased above 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate resection of early esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic did not decrease 5-year survival when compared to resection after 3 months for the base case scenario. However, as the risk of perioperative COVID-19 infection increases above 7%, a delayed approach has improved 5-year survival. This balance should be frequently re-examined by surgeons as infection risk changes in each hospital and community throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.