Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Why Women Appear to Have Better Outcomes When Undergoing Screening for Lung Cancer

Rationale: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer (LC) screening (LCS) using computed tomography (CT) documented LC mortality reductions between 7.2% and 29.2%, compared with a chest radiograph (CXR). Women appear to have a greater reduction than men. Objectives: We sought to determine why women appear to have better outcomes from LCS compared with men. Methods: We used a secondary analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial, an RCT comparing CXR with CT among screen-eligible individuals ages 55-74 years. Descriptive statistics and a competing risk proportional hazards model that included an interaction between sex and screening arm were used to examine differences in screening outcomes by sex. Results: Of 31,530 men and 21,922 women, 648 (2.1%) and 373 (1.7%) died of LC during the study, respectively. Overall mortality was higher in men: 2,771 (8.8%) versus 1,198 (5.5%). In an adjusted competing cause of death analysis, the LC mortality subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) favoring CT was significant in women (sHR = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6-0.9; P = 0.003) but not men (sHR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.78-1.06; P = 0.24). The interaction between screening arm and sex was not significant (P = 0.1). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease, which are more prevalent in men, were independently associated with LC death. LC deaths were consistently greater in the CT arm (vs. the CXR arm), for preexisting COPD and diabetes mellitus in men, but not women. Of those with LC, women in the CT arm had 53.7% prevalence of adenocarcinoma (AD) histology, whereas women in the CXR arm and men in both arms had approximately 36-41% AD prevalence. However, there was no overall difference between sexes in the screening difference for AD lethality. Conclusion: Women in the National Lung Screening Trial had a greater reduction in LC mortality that, although not statistically significant, could be the result of more prevalent comorbid disease in men, which contributed to greater all-cause and LC mortality.

Polygenic Risk Score Is Associated with Developing and Dying from Lung Cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial

Background: Epidemiological studies suggest lung cancer results from the combined effects of smoking and genetic susceptibility. The clinical application of polygenic risk scores (PRSs), derived from combining the results from multiple germline genetic variants, have not yet been explored in a lung cancer screening cohort. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of 9191 non-Hispanic white subjects from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a sub-study of high-risk smokers randomised to annual computed tomography (CT) or chest X-ray (CXR) and followed for 6.4 years (mean). This study's primary aim was to examine the relationship between a composite polygenic risk score (PRS) calculated from 12 validated risk genotypes and developing or dying from lung cancer during screening. Validation was undertaken in the UK Biobank of unscreened ever-smokers (N = 167,796) followed for 10 years (median). Results: In this prospective study, we found our PRS correlated with lung cancer incidence (p < 0.0001) and mortality (p = 0.004). In an adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis, PRS was independently associated with lung cancer death (p = 0.0027). Screening participants with intermediate and high PRS scores had a higher lung cancer mortality, relative to those with a low PRS score (rate ratios = 1.73 (95%CI 1.14-2.64, p = 0.010) and 1.89 (95%CI 1.28-2.78, p = 0.009), respectively). This was despite comparable baseline demographics (including lung function) and comparable lung cancer characteristics. The PRS's association with lung cancer mortality was validated in an unscreened cohort from the UK Biobank (p = 0.002). Conclusions: In this biomarker-based cohort study, an elevated PRS was independently associated with dying from lung cancer in both screening and non-screening cohorts.

Burden of Comorbid Conditions Among Individuals Screened for Lung Cancer

Importance

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality in trials that included relatively younger, healthier, and predominantly White populations. The comorbidity profiles among patients undergoing lung cancer screening in practice settings are poorly understood.

Objective

To evaluate the comorbidity profiles of patients in the Personalized Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) cohort as a clinical setting vs the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants in a clinical trial setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter cohort study was conducted across 3 health care systems in California, Florida, and South Carolina and included patients who underwent LDCT lung cancer screening between 2016 and 2021. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021.

Exposures

Receipt of the LDCT scan identified through Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Detailed comorbidity data, measures of pulmonary function, and study data abstracted from electronic health records and institutional, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), and state registries were compared with self-reported comorbid conditions of participants in the LDCT arm of the NLST.

Results

The PLuS cohort (n = 31 795) included 49.0% participants aged 65 years or older vs 26.6% in the NLST cohort (n = 26 723); 23.3% were individuals of racial and ethnic minority groups in the PLuS cohort compared with 8.5% in the NLST. The prevalence of comorbidity was substantially higher in the PLuS cohort than the NLST group, particularly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (32.7% vs 17.5%), diabetes (24.6% vs 9.7%), and heart disease (15.9% vs 12.9%). Among those in the PLuS cohort, 19.3% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 4 or higher, 18.0% had a frailty index greater than 0.20, 16.9% had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV-1) lower than 50% of predicted, and almost 5% had an ejection fraction lower than 40%. The prevalence of multimorbidity and frailty was especially high among those in the 75 years or older age group.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that the PLuS cohort members were older, had greater illness severity, and more racially and ethnically diverse than the NLST participants. Older patients and those with consequential comorbidity likely had different risk-benefit profiles, which may have affected screening outcomes. The high prevalence of multimorbidity, frailty, and impaired cardiopulmonary function in the PLuS cohort suggests that the balance of benefits and harms observed in the NLST group may not translate to the clinical setting.

The Use of a Tailored Decision Aid to Improve Understanding of Lung Cancer Screening in People With HIV

BACKGROUND

People with HIV are at increased risk for lung cancer and multimorbidity, complicating the balance of risks and benefits of lung cancer screening. We previously adapted Decision Precision (screenlc.com) to guide shared decision-making for lung cancer screening in people with HIV.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does an HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improve shared decision-making regarding lung cancer screening in people with HIV as measured by knowledge, decisional conflict, and acceptability?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a single-arm pilot trial of the decision aid in 40 participants with HIV eligible for lung cancer screening. The decision aid included personalized screening recommendations and HIV-specific, 5-year risk estimates of lung cancer and all-cause mortality. Participants reviewed the decision aid at shared decision-making visits and completed previsit and postvisit surveys with measures of knowledge about lung cancer screening, acceptability, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

The 40 enrolled participants were a median age of 62 years, 60% currently smoked, and they had median 5-year risks of lung cancer and all-cause mortality of 2.0% (IQR, 1.4%-3.3%) and 4.1% (IQR, 3.3%-7.9%), respectively. Personalized recommendations included "Encourage Screening" for 53% of participants and "Preference Sensitive" recommendations for the remainder. Participants showed improvement in two validated knowledge measures with relative improvement of 60% (P < 0.001) on the 12-question lung cancer screening knowledge test and 27% (P < .001) on the seven-question lung cancer screening knowledge score, with significant improvement on questions regarding false-positive and false-negative findings, incidental findings, lung cancer-specific mortality benefit, and the possible harms of screening. Participants reported low scores on the decisional conflict scale (median score, 0; interquartile range, 0-5) and high acceptability. Ninety percent of patients ultimately underwent screening within 1 month of the visit.

INTERPRETATION

In our study, this HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improved participants' knowledge of risks, benefits, and characteristics of screening with low decisional conflict and high acceptability. Our results indicate that this decision aid can enable high-quality shared decision-making in this high-risk population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04682301; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection.

DESIGN

Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities.

APPROACH

We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations.

KEY RESULTS

PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

Impact of OLD/Emphysema in LC Mortality Risk in Screening Programs: An Analysis of NLST and P-IELCAP

INTRODUCTION

The impact of obstructive lung disease (OLD) and emphysema on lung cancer (LC) mortality in patients undergoing LC screening is controversial.

METHODS

Patients with spirometry and LC diagnosed within the first three rounds of screening were selected from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and from the Pamplona International Early Lung Cancer Detection Program (P-IELCAP). Medical and demographic data, tumor characteristics, comorbidities and presence of emphysema were collected. The effect of OLD and emphysema on the risk of overall survival was assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox models, competing risk regression analysis, and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Data from 353 patients with LC, including 291 with OLD and/or emphysema and 62 with neither, were analyzed. The median age was 67.3 years-old and 56.1% met OLD criteria, predominantly mild (1: 28.3%, 2: 65.2%). Emphysema was present in 69.4% of the patients. Patients with OLD and/or emphysema had worse survival on univariate analysis (HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.86-2.31; p=0.179). However, after adjusting for LC stage, age, and sex, the HR was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.61-1.70; p=0.952). Specific LC survival between both groups showed an adjusted HR of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.47-1.72; p=0.76). Propensity score matching found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.59-1.9; p=0.929).

CONCLUSION

The survival of LC patients diagnosed in the context of screening is not negatively impacted by the coexistence of mild OLD and/or emphysema.

Adaptation of a Tailored Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid for People With HIV

BACKGROUND

People with HIV are both at elevated risk of lung cancer and at high risk of multimorbidity, which makes shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) in people with HIV complex. Currently no known tools have been adapted for SDM in people with HIV.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can an SDM decision aid be adapted to include HIV-specific measures with input from both people with HIV and their providers?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study used qualitative methods including focus groups of people with HIV and interviews with HIV care providers to adapt and iterate an SDM tool for people with HIV. Eligible participants were those with HIV enrolled in an HIV primary care clinic who met age and smoking eligibility criteria for LCS and HIV care providers at the clinic. Both the focus groups and interviews included semistructured discussions of SDM and decision aid elements for people with HIV. We used a framework-guided thematic analysis, mapping themes onto the Health Equity Implementation framework.

RESULTS

Forty-three people with HIV participated in eight focus groups; 10 providers were interviewed. Key themes from patients included broad interest in adapting LCS SDM specifically for people with HIV, a preference for clear LCS recommendations, and the need for positive framing emphasizing survival. Providers were enthusiastic about personalized LCS risk assessments and point-of-care tools. Both patients and providers gave mixed views on the usefulness of HIV-specific risk measures in patient-facing tools. Themes were used to adapt a personalized and flexible SDM tool for LCS in people with HIV.

INTERPRETATION

People with HIV and providers were enthusiastic about specific tools for SDM that are personalized and tailored for people with HIV, that make recommendations, and that inform LCS decision-making. Divergent views on presenting patient-facing quantitative risk assessments suggests that these elements could be optional but available for review. This tool may have usefulness in complex decision-making for LCS in this population and currently is being evaluated in a pilot prospective trial.

Screening Low-Risk Individuals for Lung Cancer: The Need May Be Present, but the Evidence of Benefit Is Not

Worldwide, lung cancer is the most common killer among cancers, advanced disease has worse outcomes, earlier stage detection leads to better outcomes, and high-quality screening has a favorable net benefit. With the mortality reduction recognized from annual low-radiation dose computed tomography by screening those at high risk, there has been consideration that this benefit could translate to those who have never smoked. There have been several large-scale, single-arm, observational trials in Asia in persons with light to no smoking histories, with or without a family history of lung cancer, which have revealed high or higher lung cancer detection rates than previously reported in high-risk persons who currently or formerly smoked. The Early Detection Program for Lung Cancer in Taiwan, of nearly 50,000 persons, revealed that the cancer detection rate for those screened with low-radiation dose computed tomography was more than twofold higher in light- or never-smokers with a family history of lung cancer compared with high-risk persons with more than 30 or more pack-years exposure and meeting U.S. Preventative Services Task Force criteria for screening. In addition, more than 90% of the cancers detected in those with a family history were in early stage. On the basis of those findings, the researchers concluded that screening first-degree relatives of those with a family history of lung cancer, irrespective of smoking history, would lead to a decrease in lung cancer mortality. We believe that the findings in this cohort and others like it represent substantial overdiagnosis and that the harms associated with screening a population that has a low likelihood of developing lethal cancers have not been thoroughly considered. Here, we provide our perspective and consider the potential benefits and harms of screening populations outside those currently eligible using the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force criteria.

The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Recommendations regarding personalized lung cancer screening are being informed by natural-history modeling. Therefore, understanding how differences in model assumptions affect model-based personalized screening recommendations is essential.

DESIGN

Five Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models were evaluated. Lung cancer incidence, mortality, and stage distributions were compared across 4 theoretical scenarios to assess model assumptions regarding 1) sojourn times, 2) stage-specific sensitivities, and 3) screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions. Analyses were stratified by sex and smoking behavior.

RESULTS

Most cancers had sojourn times <5 y (model range [MR]; lowest to highest value across models: 83.5%-98.7% of cancers). However, cancer aggressiveness still varied across models, as demonstrated by differences in proportions of cancers with sojourn times <2 y (MR: 42.5%-64.6%) and 2 to 4 y (MR: 28.8%-43.6%). Stage-specific sensitivity varied, particularly for stage I (MR: 31.3%-91.5%). Screening reduced stage IV incidence in most models for 1 y postscreening; increased sensitivity prolonged this period to 2 to 5 y. Screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions among lung cancers detected at screening ranged widely (MR: 14.6%-48.9%), demonstrating variations in modeled treatment effectiveness of screen-detected cases. All models assumed longer sojourn times and greater screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for women. Models assuming differences in cancer epidemiology by smoking behaviors assumed shorter sojourn times and lower screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for heavy smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based personalized screening recommendations are primarily driven by assumptions regarding sojourn times (favoring longer intervals for groups more likely to develop less aggressive cancers), sensitivity (higher sensitivities favoring longer intervals), and screening-induced mortality reductions (greater reductions favoring shorter intervals).

IMPLICATIONS

Models suggest longer screening intervals may be feasible and benefits may be greater for women and light smokers.

HIGHLIGHTS

Natural-history models are increasingly used to inform lung cancer screening, but causes for variations between models are difficult to assess.This is the first evaluation of these causes and their impact on personalized screening recommendations through easily interpretable metrics.Models vary regarding sojourn times, stage-specific sensitivities, and screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions.Model outcomes were similar in predicting greater screening benefits for women and potentially light smokers. Longer screening intervals may be feasible for women and light smokers.

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.

The Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With Comorbidities

Introduction

Individuals with a history of smoking and a high risk of lung cancer often have a high prevalence of smoking-related comorbidities. The presence of these comorbidities might alter the benefit-to-harm ratio of lung cancer screening by influencing the risk of complications, quality of life, and competing risks of death. Nevertheless, individuals with chronic diseases are underrepresented in screening clinical trials. In this study, we use microsimulation modeling to determine the impact of chronic diseases on lung cancer benefits and harms.

Methods

We extended a validated lung cancer screening microsimulation model that comprehensively recapitulates an individual's lung cancer development, progression, detection, follow-up, treatment, and survival. We parameterized the model to reflect the impact of chronic diseases on complications from invasive testing, quality of life, and mortality in individuals in five-year age categories between the ages of 50 and 80 years. Outcomes included life-years (LY) gained per 100,000 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and history of stroke compared with screening-eligible individuals without comorbidities.

Results

Among individuals between the ages of 50 and 54 years, we found that the presence of a comorbidity altered the LY gained from screening per 100,000 individuals depending on the comorbidity: 4296 LY with no comorbidities; 3462 LY, 3260 LY, 3031 LY, and 3257 LY with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and stroke, respectively. We observed greater reductions in LY gained in individuals with two comorbidities; we observed similar patterns for individuals between the ages of 55 and 59 years, 60 and 64 years, 65 and 69 years, 70 and 74 years, and 75 and 80 years.

Conclusions

Comorbidities reduce LY gained from screening per 100,000 compared with no comorbidities, and our results can be used by clinicians when discussing the benefits and harms of screening in their patients with comorbidities.

Patient-Provider Discussion About Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Equitable Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Physician-patient discussions regarding lung cancer screening (LCS) are uncommon and its racial and ethnic disparities are under-investigated. We examined the racial and ethnic disparities in the trends and frequency of LCS discussion among the LCS-eligible United States (US) population.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2014 to 2020. LCS-eligible individuals were defined as adults aged 55 to 80 years old who have a current or former smoking history. We estimated the trends and frequency of LCS discussions and adjusted the probability of having an LCS discussion by racial and ethnic groups.

RESULTS

Among 2136 LCS-eligible participants (representing 22.7 million US adults), 12.9% (95% CI, 10.9%-15%) reported discussing LCS with their providers in the past year. The frequency of LCS discussion was lowest among non-Hispanic White participants (12.3%, 95% CI, 9.9%-14.7%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups (14.1% in Hispanic to 15.3% in non-Hispanic Black). A significant increase over time was only observed among non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1% in 2014 to 22.1% in 2020; P = .05) and non-Hispanic Whites (8.5% in 2014 to 14% in 2020; P = .02). In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black participants (14.6%, 95% CI, 12.3%-16.7%) had a significantly higher probability of LCS discussion than non-Hispanic Whites (12.1%, 95% CI, 11.4%-12.7%).

CONCLUSION

Patient-provider LCS discussion was uncommon in the LCS-eligible US population. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have LCS discussions than other racial and ethnic groups. There is a need for more research to clarify the discordance between LCS discussions and the actual screening uptake in this population.

Clinical Adjuncts to Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review

The updated US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on lung cancer screening have significantly expanded the population of screening eligible adults, among whom the balance of benefits and harms associated with lung cancer screening vary considerably. Clinical adjuncts are additional information and tools that can guide decision-making to optimally screen individuals who are most likely to benefit. Proposed adjuncts include integration of clinical history, risk prediction models, shared-decision-making tools, and biomarker tests at key steps in the screening process. Although evidence regarding their clinical utility and implementation is still evolving, they carry significant promise in optimizing screening effectiveness and efficiency for lung cancer.

Use of Veterans Health Administration Structured Data to Identify Patients Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake is low. Assessing patients' cigarette pack-years and years since quitting is challenging given the lack of documentation in structured electronic health record data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a convenience sample of patients with a chest CT scan in the Veterans Health Administration. We abstracted data on cigarette use from electronic health record notes to determine LCS eligibility based on the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force age and cigarette use eligibility criteria. We used these data as the "ground truth" of LCS eligibility to compare them with structured data regarding tobacco use and a COPD diagnosis. We calculated sensitivity and specificity as well as fast-and-frugal decision trees.

RESULTS

For 50-80-year-old veterans identified as former or current tobacco users, we obtained 94% sensitivity and 47% specificity. For 50-80-year-old veterans identified as current tobacco users, we obtained 59% sensitivity and 79% specificity. Our fast-and-frugal decision tree that included a COPD diagnosis had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 60%.

CONCLUSION

These results can help health care systems make their LCS outreach efforts more efficient and give administrators and researchers a simple method to estimate their number of possibly eligible patients.

Should we be screening for COPD? - looking through the lens of lung cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

In May 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force published their recommendation against screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asymptomatic adults. However, we argue the routine use of spirometry in both asymptomatic and symptomatic high-risk smokers has utility.

AREAS COVERED

We provide published and unpublished observations from a secondary analyses of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, including 18,463 high-risk current or former smokers who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline. According to history alone, 20% reported a prior diagnosis of 'COPD,' although only 11% (about one half), actually had airflow limitation (Diagnosed COPD) and 9% had Global Initiative for Obstructive Pulmonary Disease GOLD 0 Pre-COPD. Of the remaining 80% of 'asymptomatic' screening participants, 23% had airflow limitation (Screen-detected COPD) and 13% had preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm). This means 45% of this high-risk cohort were reclassified by spirometry, and together with comorbid disease, identified subgroups where lung cancer screening efficacy could be optimized by between 2-6 fold.

EXPERT OPINION

Our preliminary findings suggest lung cancer screening outcomes vary according to 'new' COPD-related spirometric-defined subgroups and that screening spirometry, together with comorbid disease, identifies those for whom lung cancer screening is mostly beneficial or potentially harmful.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

A Closer Look-Who Are We Screening for Lung Cancer?

Objective

To evaluate the characteristics of individuals receiving lung cancer screening (LCS) and identify those with potentially limited benefit owing to coexisting chronic illnesses and/or comorbidities.

Patients and Methods

In this retrospective study in the United States, patients were selected from a large clinical database who received LCS from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, with at least 1 year of continuous enrollment. We assessed for potentially limited benefit in LCS defined strictly as not meeting the traditional risk factor inclusion criteria (age <55 years or >80 years, previous computed tomography scan within 11 months before an LCS examination, or a history of nonskin cancer) or liberally as having the potential exclusion criteria related to comorbid life-limiting conditions, such as cardiac and/or respiratory disease.

Results

A total of 51,551 patients were analyzed. Overall, 8391 (16.3%) individuals experienced a potentially limited benefit from LCS. Among those who did not meet the strict traditional inclusion criteria, 317 (3.8%) were because of age, 2350 (28%) reported a history of nonskin malignancy, and 2211 (26.3%) underwent a previous computed tomography thorax within 11 months before an LCS examination. Of those with potentially limited benefit owing to comorbidity, 3680 (43.9%) were because of severe respiratory comorbidity (937 [25.5%] with any hospitalization for coronary obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, or respiratory failure; 131 [3.6%] with hospitalization for respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation; or 3197 [86.9%] with chronic obstructive disease/interstitial lung disease requiring outpatient oxygen) and 721 (8.59%) with cardiac comorbidity.

Conclusion

Up to 1 of 6 low-dose computed tomography examinations may have limited benefit from LCS.

Patient impressions of the impact of comorbidities on lung cancer screening benefits and harms: A qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To learn about the beliefs and preferences of lung cancer screening (LCS) among patients undergoing LCS decision making. Specifically, we investigated how their comorbidity influences their interest in screening. The goal was to inform shared-decision making discussions around the role of comorbidities and LCS.

METHODS

We recruited English-speaking LCS-eligible individuals with comorbidities from general medicine outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in New York City. The interviewers followed a semi-structured interview guide and all interviews were professionally transcribed. Study investigators independently conducted thematic analysis of de-identified transcripts; after coding, investigators discussed and agreed upon identified themes (Jacobs et al., 1999 [3]). This study was IRB-approved.

RESULTS

We achieved thematic saturation after 15 interviews. We identified the following themes: 1) Comorbidities were perceived as unrelated to LCS decision-making, 2) Lung cancer knowledge is valuable and worth any risks, 3) No matter what the guidelines or my providers say, the LCS decision is up to me.

CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implications of these findings are that conversations where providers recommend against LCS may likely require time, patient education, and appreciation of the patient perspective.

The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes for all lung cancer patients, but its burden is less understood in the context of screening. This review synthesises the prevalence of comorbidities among lung cancer screening (LCS) candidates and summarises the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL databases from January 1990 to February 2021. We included LCS studies that reported a prevalence of comorbidity, as a prevalence of a particular condition, or as a summary score. We also summarised LCS clinical guidelines that addressed comorbidity or frailty for LCS as a secondary objective for this review. Meta-analysis was used with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model to estimate the prevalence of selected comorbidities.

RESULTS

We included 69 studies in the review; seven reported comorbidity summary scores, two reported performance status, 48 reported individual comorbidities, and 12 were clinical guideline papers. The meta-analysis of individual comorbidities resulted in an estimated prevalence of 35.2% for hypertension, 23.5% for history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (10.7% for severe COPD), 16.6% for ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 13.1% for peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 12.9% for asthma, 12.5% for diabetes, 4.5% for bronchiectasis, 2.2% for stroke, and 0.5% for pulmonary fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidities were highly prevalent in LCS populations and likely to be more prevalent than in other cancer screening programmes. Further research on the burden of comorbid disease and its impact on screening uptake and outcomes is needed. Identifying individuals with frailty and comorbidities who might not benefit from screening should become a priority in LCS research.

Airflow limitation and mortality during cancer screening in the National Lung Screening Trial: why quantifying airflow limitation matters

Importance

Current eligibility criteria for lung cancer (LC) screening are derived from randomised controlled trials and primarily based on age and smoking history. However, the individual benefits of screening are highly variable and potentially attenuated by co-morbidities such as advanced airflow limitation (AL).

Objective

To examine the relationship between the presence and severity of AL and screening outcomes.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of 18 463 high-risk smokers, a substudy from the National Lung Screening Trial, who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline and median follow-up of 6.1 years. We used descriptive statistics and a competing risk proportional hazards model to examine differences in screening outcomes by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severity group.

Results

The risk of developing LC increased with worsening AL (effect size=0.34, p<0.0001), as did the risk of dying of LC (effect size=0.35, p<0.0001). While those with severe AL (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease, GOLD grade 3–4) had the highest risk of LC and the highest LC mortality, they also had fewer adenocarcinomas (effect size=−0.20, p=0.008) and a lower surgery rate (effect size=−0.16, p=0.014) despite comparable staging, and greater non-LC mortality relative to LC mortality (effect size=0.30, p<0.0001). In participants with no AL, screening with CT was associated with a significant reduction in LC deaths relative to chest X-ray (30.3%, 95% CI 4.5% to 49.2%, p<0.05). The clinically relevant but attenuated reduction in those with AL (18.5%, 95% CI −8.4% to 38.7%, p>0.05) could be attributed to GOLD 3–4, where no appreciable mortality reduction was observed.

Conclusion

Despite a greater risk of LC, severe AL was not associated with any apparent reduction in LC mortality following screening.

The influence of postscreening follow-up time and participant characteristics on estimates of overdiagnosis from lung cancer screening trials

We aimed to explore the underlying reasons that estimates of overdiagnosis vary across and within low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials. We conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of overdiagnosis from randomised controlled trials of LDCT screening. We then analysed the association of Ps (the excess incidence of lung cancer as a proportion of screen-detected cases) with postscreening follow-up time using a linear random effects meta-regression model. Separately, we analysed annual Ps estimates from the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial (LUSI) using exponential decay models with asymptotes. We conducted stratified analyses to investigate participant characteristics associated with Ps using the extended follow-up data from NLST. Among 12 overdiagnosis estimates from 8 trials, the postscreening follow-up ranged from 3.8 to 9.3 years, and Ps ranged from -27.0% (ITALUNG, 8.3 years follow-up) to 67.2% (DLCST, 5.0 years follow-up). Across trials, 39.1% of the variation in Ps was explained by postscreening follow-up time. The annual changes in Ps were -3.5% and -3.9% in the NLST and LUSI trials, respectively. Ps was predicted to plateau at 2.2% for NLST and 9.2% for LUSI with hypothetical infinite follow-up. In NLST, Ps increased with age from -14.9% (55-59 years) to 21.7% (70-74 years), and time trends in Ps varied by histological type. The findings suggest that differences in postscreening follow-up time partially explain variation in overdiagnosis estimates across lung cancer screening trials. Estimates of overdiagnosis should be interpreted in the context of postscreening follow-up and population characteristics.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level.

OBJECTIVE

To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR).

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

United States, 2015 to 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT.

RESULTS

Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Factors Associated With Declining Lung Cancer Screening After Discussion With a Physician in a Cohort of US Veterans

Importance

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is underused in the US, particularly in underserved populations, and little is known about factors associated with declining LCS. Guidelines call for shared decision-making when LCS is offered to ensure informed, patient-centered decisions.

Objective

To assess how frequently veterans decline LCS and examine factors associated with declining LCS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included LCS-eligible US veterans who were offered LCS between January 1, 2013, and February 1, 2021, by a physician at 1 of 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities that routinely used electronic health record clinical reminders documenting LCS eligibility and veterans' decisions to accept or decline LCS. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse or Medicare claims files from the VA Information Resource Center.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was documentation, in clinical reminders, that veterans declined LCS after a discussion with a physician. Logistic regression analyses with physicians and facilities as random effects were used to assess factors associated with declining LCS compared with agreeing to LCS.

Results

Of 43 257 LCS-eligible veterans who were offered LCS (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [5.8] years), 95.9% were male, 84.2% were White, and 37.1% lived in a rural zip code; 32.0% declined screening. Veterans were less likely to decline LCS if they were younger (age 55-59 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; age 60-64 years: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), were Black (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), were Hispanic (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), did not have to make co-payments (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99), or had more frequent VHA health care utilization (outpatient: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.72; emergency department: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Veterans were more likely to decline LCS if they were older (age 70-74 years: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.37; age 75-80 years: OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.73-2.17), lived farther from a VHA screening facility (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08), had spent more days in long-term care (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), or had specific cardiovascular or mental health conditions (congestive heart failure: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39; stroke: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; schizophrenia: OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.19). The physician and facility offering LCS accounted for 19% and 36% of the variation in declining LCS, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, older veterans with serious comorbidities were more likely to decline LCS and Black and Hispanic veterans were more likely to accept it. Variation in LCS decisions was accounted for more by the facility and physician offering LCS than by patient factors. These findings suggest that shared decision-making conversations in which patients play a central role in guiding care may enhance patient-centered care and address disparities in LCS.

Impact of Comorbidities on Lung Cancer Screening Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

We used data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to examine the impact of self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus on diagnostic complications in lung cancer screening evaluation.

METHODS

In our analysis, we included individuals from the usual care and intervention (annual chest x-ray) of the lung cancer screening trial with equal or greater than 55 years of age with a 20 pack-year smoking history who had undergone an invasive procedure. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to estimate the association of comorbidity on procedure complication. Our primary outcome was the incidence of major or moderate complications.

RESULTS

Features associated with high-risk complication included older age (OR = 1.03 per year, P = .001), history of coronary artery disease (OR = 1.40, P = .03), history of diabetes mellitus (OR = 0.41, P < .001, current smoking status (OR = 1.46, P ≤ .001), surgical biopsy (OR = 7.39, P < .001), needle biopsy (OR = 1.94, P < .001), and other invasive procedure (OR = 1.58, P < .001). We did not find an associated with complication and history of stroke (OR = 0.84, P = .53) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.27, P = .06).

CONCLUSION

Patient and procedure-level factors may alter the benefits of lung cancer screening. Data concerning individual risk factors and high-risk complications should therefore be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms to optimize clinical benefit and minimize harm. Further study and validation of the risk factors identified herein are warranted.

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.

Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Prevalence, symptom burden and under-diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Polish lung cancer screening population: a cohort observational study

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening using low-dose CT may be not effective without considering the presence of comorbidities related to chronic smoking. The aim of the study was to establish the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in group of phighlight the potential benefits atients participating in the largest Polish lung cancer screening programme MOLTEST-BIS and attempt to confirm the necessity of combined lung cancer and COPD screening.

DESIGN

Cohort, prospective study.

SETTING

Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland PARTICIPANTS: The study included 754 participants in lung cancer screening trial from the Pomeranian region, aged 50-70 years old, current and former smokers with a smoking history ≥30 pack-years.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Questionnaire, physical examination, anthropometric measurements, spirometry test before and after inhaled bronchodilator (400 µg of salbutamol) RESULTS: Obstructive disorders were diagnosed in 186 cases (103 male and 83 female). In the case of 144 participants (19.73%), COPD was diagnosed. Only 13.3% of participants with COPD were known about the disease earlier. According to classification of airflow limitation 55.6% of diagnosed COPD were in Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1 (mild), 38.9% in GOLD 2 (moderate), 4.9% in GOLD 3 (severe) and 0.7% in GOLD 4 (very severe) stage. Women with recognition of COPD were younger than men (63.7 vs 66.3 age) and they smoked less cigarettes (41.1 vs 51.9 pack-years).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of COPD in Polish lung cancer screening cohort is significant. The COPD in this group is remarkably under-diagnosed. Most diagnosed COPD cases were in the initial stage of advancement. This early detection of airflow limitation highlights the potential benefits arising from combined oncological-pulmonary screening.NKBBN.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Exposures

Self-reported health status and race and ethnicity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Self-reported LCS in the last 12 months.

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

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.

Guideline-Recommended Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Is Superior With a Centralized Approach

BACKGROUND

To recognize fully the benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS), annual adherence must approach the high levels seen in the National Lung Screening Trial. Emerging data suggest that annual adherence is poor and that a centralized approach to screening improves adherence.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Do differences in adherence exist between a centralized and decentralized approach to LCS within a hybrid program and what are predictors of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective evaluation of a single-center hybrid LCS program was conducted to compare outcomes including patient eligibility and adherence between the centralized and decentralized approaches.

METHODS

Patient demographics and outcomes were compared between those screened with a centralized and decentralized approach and between adherent and nonadherent patients using two-sample t tests, χ ² tests, or analyses of variance, as appropriate. Annual adherence analysis was conducted using data from patients who remained eligible for screening with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between adherence and the primary exposure, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1,117 patients underwent baseline low-dose CT imaging. Two hundred eleven patients (19%) were ineligible by United States Preventative Services Task Force criteria and most (90%) were screened with the decentralized approach. After exclusions, 765 patients with Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 remained eligible for annual screening. Overall adherence was 56%; however, adherence in the centralized program was 70%, compared with 41% with the decentralized approach (P < .001). Individuals screened in a decentralized approach were 73% less likely to be adherent (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.37). A greater proportion of patients with three or more comorbidities were screened outside the centralized program.

INTERPRETATION

Those screened using a centralized approach were more likely to meet eligibility criteria for LCS and more likely to return for annual screening than those screened using a decentralized approach.

Early Diagnosis and Screening for Lung Cancer

Cancer interception refers to actively blocking the cancer development process by preventing progression of premalignancy to invasive disease. The rate-limiting steps for effective lung cancer interception are the incomplete understanding of the earliest molecular events associated with lung carcinogenesis, the lack of preclinical models of pulmonary premalignancy, and the challenge of developing highly sensitive and specific methods for early detection. Recent advances in cancer interception are facilitated by developments in next-generation sequencing, computational methodologies, as well as the renewed emphasis in precision medicine and immuno-oncology. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge in the areas of molecular abnormalities in lung cancer continuum, preclinical human models of lung cancer pathogenesis, and the advances in early lung cancer diagnostics.

Self-reported exercise capacity among current smokers eligible for lung cancer screening: Distribution and association with key comorbidities

ONE CONCERN: as lung cancer screening (LCS) is implemented is that patients will be screened who are too ill to benefit. Poor exercise capacity (EC) predicts adverse outcomes following lung resection.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the distribution of EC among smokers eligible for LCS and examine associations with comorbidities.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of tobacco treatment in the context of LCS. Participants responded regarding limitations in moderate activities, ability to climb stairs, and frequency of dyspnea on a scale from never/almost never to all or most of the time. Responses were assigned a numeric score and summed to categorize exercise limitation. Associations between poor EC and key comorbidities were examined using adjusted logistic regression.

RESULTS

660 participants completed a survey with the following characteristics: 64.4% male, 89.5% white, mean age 64.5. Overall EC categories were: good 39.0%, intermediate 41.6%, and poor 19.4%.  Prevalence of poor EC was higher among patients with COPD (OR 4.62 95%CI 3.05-7.02), heart failure (OR 3.07 95%CI 1.62-5.82) and cardiovascular disease (OR 2.24, 95%CI 1.45-3.47), and was highest among patients with multimorbidity. Among patients with COPD and heart failure, 57% had poor and 0% had good EC. In adjusted logistic regression, only COPD and Charlson comorbidity index remained significantly associated with poor EC.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients eligible for LCS reported poor EC, with increased odds of poor EC among patients with comorbidities. More research is needed to determine how to best integrate EC and comorbidity into eligibility and shared decision-making conversations.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as 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 PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as 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 GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded 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 7 graded recommendations and 9 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.

Comorbidity Profiles and Lung Cancer Screening among Older Adults: U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2017 to 2019

RATIONALE

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now recommended for those meeting standard risk factor-based eligibility criteria, the role of comorbidity in the uptake of LCS with LDCT in an older real-world U.S. population is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationships between comorbidity, functional status and LCS utilization in the United States.

METHODS

Using population-based data from the 2017-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we examined the association of comorbid conditions and functional limitations regarding activities of daily living with LCS utilization among participants that met the LCS criteria based on the US Preventive Service Taskforce guidelines. We employed multivariable weighted logistic regression models to evaluate these associations, both overall and within subgroups defined by age (<65 vs. ≥65 years), gender, and smoking history.

RESULTS

Of 11,214 participants that met the eligibility criteria for LCS, 1731 (16%) underwent LCS with LDCT. The majority were white (90%), male (55%), former smokers (52%) and living with at least one chronic comorbid condition (77%). Over 28% had 3 or more comorbid conditions and approximately 40% of participants reported having some form of functional limitations. In the multivariable models, the likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT within the past year was positively associated with higher levels of comorbidity (≥5 vs. 0: aOR=2.34, 95% CI=1.22,4.48) but not with functional limitations (≥3 vs. 0: aOR=1.00, 95% CI=0.66, 1.50).

CONCLUSION

The presence of comorbid conditions is associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT. Because poor health status may diminish the benefits of screening, future research is needed to precisely characterize the health status of LCS-eligible individuals.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population‐based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk‐factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk‐based. In fact, the selection of high‐risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost‐effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk‐stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk‐based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk‐based approaches can negatively influence the trade‐off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large‐scale implementation of targeted, risk‐based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high‐risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk‐based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk‐stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.

Variation in Eligible Patients' Agreeing to and Receiving Lung Cancer Screening: A Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how clinicians make low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening decisions in practice. Investigators assessed the factors associated with real-world decision making, hypothesizing that lung cancer risk and comorbidity would not be associated with agreeing to or receiving screening. Though these factors are key determinants of the benefit of lung cancer screening, they are often difficult to incorporate into decisions without the aid of decision tools.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients meeting current national eligibility criteria and deemed appropriate candidates for lung cancer screening on the basis of clinical reminders completed over a 2-year period (2013-2015) at 8 Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models (conducted in 2019-2020) assessed predictors (age, sex, lung cancer risk, Charlson Comorbidity Index, travel distance to facility, and central versus outlying decision-making location) of primary outcomes of agreeing to and receiving lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

Of 5,551 patients (mean age=67 years, 97% male, mean lung cancer risk=0.7%, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index=1.14, median travel distance=24.2 miles), 3,720 (67%) agreed to lung cancer screening and 2,398 (43%) received screening. Lung cancer risk and comorbidity score were not strong predictors of agreeing to or receiving screening. Empirical Bayes adjusted rates of agreeing to and receiving screening ranged from 22% to 84% across facilities and from 19% to 85% across clinicians. A total of 33.7% of the variance in agreeing to and 34.2% of the variance in receiving screening was associated with the facility or the clinician offering screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation was found in Veterans agreeing to and receiving lung cancer screening during the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. This variation was not explained by differences in key determinants of patient benefit, whereas the facility and clinician advising the patient had a large impact on lung cancer screening decisions.

Preoperative coronary artery calcifications in veterans predict higher all-cause mortality in early-stage lung cancer: a cohort study

Background

Lung cancer patients often have comorbidities that may impact survival. This observational cohort study examines whether coronary artery calcifications (CAC) impact all-cause mortality in patients with resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Veterans with stage I NSCLC who underwent resection at a single institution between 2005 and 2018 were selected from a prospectively collected database. Radiologists blinded to patient outcomes graded CAC severity (mild, moderate, or severe) in preoperative CT scans using a visual estimation scoring system. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the kappa statistic. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare time-to-death by varying CAC.

Results

The Veteran patients (n=195) were predominantly older (median age of 67) male (98%) smokers (96%). The majority (68%) were pathologic stage IA. Overall, 12% of patients had no CAC, 27% mild, 26% moderate, and 36% severe CAC. Median unadjusted survival was 8.8 years for patients with absent or mild CAC versus 6.3 years for moderate and 5.9 years for severe CAC (P=0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio for moderate CAC was 1.44 (95% CI, 0.85–2.46) and for severe CAC was 1.73 (95% CI, 1.03–2.88; P for trend <0.05).

Conclusions

The presence of severe CAC on preoperative imaging significantly impacted the all-cause survival of patients undergoing resection for stage I NSCLC. This impact on mortality should be taken into consideration by multidisciplinary teams when making treatment plans for patients with early-stage disease.

Lung Cancer Screening With Low Dose Computed Tomography in Patients With and Without Prior History of Cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with a prior history of cancer (PHC) are at increased risk of second primary malignancy, of which lung cancer is the most common. We compared the performance metrics of positive screening rates and cancer detection rates (CDRs) among those with versus without PHC.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 26,366 National Lung Screening Trial participants screened with low dose computed tomography between August 2002 and September 2007. We evaluated absolute rates and age-adjusted relative risks (RRs) of positive screening rates on the basis of retrospective Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) application, invasive diagnostic procedure rate, complication rate, and CDR in those with versus without PHC using a binary logistic regression model using Firth's penalized likelihood. We also compared cancer type, stage, and treatment in those with versus without PHC.

RESULTS

A total of 4.1% (n = 1071) of patients had PHC. Age-adjusted rates of positive findings were similar in those with versus without PHC (Baseline: PHC = 13.7% versus no PHC = 13.3%, RR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.04 [0.88-1.24]; Subsequent: PHC = 5.6% versus no PHC = 5.5%, RR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.84-1.23]). Age-adjusted CDRs were higher in those with versus without PHC on baseline (PHC=1.9% versus no PHC = 0.8%, RR [95% CI]: 2.51 [1.67-3.81]) but not on subsequent screenings (PHC = 0.6% versus no PHC = 0.4%, RR [95% CI]: 1.37 [0.99-1.93]). There were no differences in cancer stage, type, or treatment by PHC status.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PHC may benefit from lung cancer screening, and with their providers, should be made aware of the possibility of higher cancer detection, invasive procedures, and complication rates on baseline lung cancer screening, but not on subsequent low dose computed tomography screening examinations.

Chr15q25 genetic variant (rs16969968) independently confers risk of lung cancer, COPD and smoking intensity in a prospective study of high-risk smokers

IMPORTANCE

While cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 5 (CHRNA5) variants have been linked to lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and smoking addiction in case-controls studies, their corelationship is not well understood and requires retesting in a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To re-examine the association between the CHRNA5 variant (rs16969968 AA genotype) and the development of lung cancer, relative to its association with COPD and smoking.

METHODS

In 9270 Non-Hispanic white subjects from the National Lung Screening Trial, a substudy of high-risk smokers were followed for an average of 6.4 years. We compared CHRNA5 genotype according to baseline smoking exposure, lung function and COPD status. We also compared the lung cancer incidence rate, and used multiple logistic regression and mediation analysis to examine the role of the AA genotype of the CHRNA5 variant in smoking exposure, COPD and lung cancer.

RESULTS

As previously reported, we found the AA high-risk genotype was associated with lower lung function (p=0.005), greater smoking intensity (p<0.001), the presence of COPD (OR 1.28 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.49) p=0.0015) and the development of lung cancer (HR 1.41, (95% CI 1.03 to 1.93) p=0.03). In a mediation analyses, the AA genotype was independently associated with smoking intensity (OR 1.42 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.60, p<0.0001), COPD (OR 1.25, (95% CI 1.66 to 2.53), p=0.0015) and developing lung cancer (OR 1.37, (95% CI 1.03 to 1.82) p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

In this large-prospective study, we found the CHRNA5 rs 16 969 968 AA genotype to be independently associated with smoking exposure, COPD and lung cancer (triple whammy effect).