Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT

Impact on patient attitudes towards lung cancer screening and smoking cessation with radiology consultation: Pilot survey project

PURPOSE

We developed a novel patient-radiologist consultation for patients scheduled for lung cancer screening (LCS). We hypothesized that this intervention would improve patient attitudes towards LCS adherence and smoking cessation.

METHODS

This quality improvement project enrolled 38 LCS patients (a majority were African American) and included 20 current and 18 former smokers. The intervention, a 5-10 min consultation with a radiologist who provided preliminary interpretation of pertinent imaging findings in conjunction with smoking cessation counseling, took place in the radiology reading room immediately after the low dose computed tomography (LDCT) patient scan. Pre- and post-intervention surveys assessed patient attitudes towards LCS and smoking cessation.

RESULTS

All recruited patients consented to participate in this project. Regarding viewing their LCS imaging, 86.8% (33/38) expressed general interest initially, with 100.0% (38/38) being more interested afterwards. On LCS logistics, 71.1% (27/38) reported prior knowledge at baseline, while 89.5% (34/38) reported being more informed following the intervention. Among current smokers, 90.0% (18/20) were already motivated towards quitting smoking at baseline, with 100.0% (20/20) exiting the intervention being more interested in doing so. Regarding smoking cessation resources, 95.0% (19/20) were interested in accessing such resources at baseline, and 90.0% (18/20, 2 were same/neutral) were more interested afterwards.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' attitudes towards LCS and self-reported interest in quitting smoking were directionally higher after the consultation than at baseline. Incorporating LCS consultations with radiologists as part of patient-centered care provides a resource to educate patients on their own LCS imaging findings while promoting LCS adherence and smoking cessation.

Personalised lung cancer risk stratification and lung cancer screening: do general practice electronic medical records have a role?

BACKGROUND

In the United Kingdom (UK), cancer screening invitations are based on general practice (GP) registrations. We hypothesize that GP electronic medical records (EMR) can be utilised to calculate a lung cancer risk score with good accuracy/clinical utility.

METHODS

The development cohort was Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-SAIL (2.3 million GP EMR) and the validation cohort was UK Biobank-UKB (N = 211,597 with GP-EMR availability). Fast backward method was applied for variable selection and area under the curve (AUC) evaluated discrimination.

RESULTS

Age 55-75 were included (SAIL: N = 574,196; UKB: N = 137,918). Six-year lung cancer incidence was 1.1% (6430) in SAIL and 0.48% (656) in UKB. The final model included 17/56 variables in SAIL for the EMR-derived score: age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking status, family history, body mass index (BMI), BMI:smoking interaction, alcohol misuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, dementia, hypertension, painful condition, stroke, peripheral vascular disease and history of previous cancer and previous pneumonia. The GP-EMR-derived score had AUC of 80.4% in SAIL and 74.4% in UKB and outperformed ever-smoked criteria (currently the first step in UK lung cancer screening pilots).

DISCUSSION

A GP-EMR-derived score may have a role in UK lung cancer screening by accurately targeting high-risk individuals without requiring patient contact.

Interventions Designed to Increase the Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: An Equity-Oriented Scoping Review

Introduction

Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) is lower in populations with the highest burden of lung cancer risk (through the social patterning of smoking behavior) and lowest levels of health care utilization (through structurally inaccessible care) leading to a widening of health inequities.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework to inform equitable access to LCS by illuminating knowledge and implementation gaps in interventions designed to increase the uptake of LCS. We comprehensively searched for LCS interventions (Ovid Medline, Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus from 2000 to June 22, 2021) and included peer-reviewed articles and gray literature published in the English language that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of LCS, charted data using our previously published tool and conduced a health equity analysis to determine the intended-unintended and positive-negative outcomes of the interventions for populations experiencing the greatest inequities.

Results

Our search yielded 3572 peer-reviewed articles and 54,292 pieces of gray literature. Ultimately, we included 35 peer-reviewed articles and one gray literature. The interventions occurred in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy, focusing on shared decision-making, the use of electronic health records as reminders, patient navigation, community-based campaigns, and mobile computed tomography scanners. We developed an equity-oriented LCS framework and mapped the dimensions and outcomes of the interventions on access to LCS on the basis of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness of the intervention. No intervention was mapped across all five dimensions. Most notably, knowledge and implementation gaps were identified in dimensions of acceptability, availability, and affordability.

Conclusions

Interventions that were most effective in improving access to LCS targeted priority populations, raised community-level awareness, tailored materials for sociocultural acceptability, did not depend on prior patient engagement/registration with the health care system, proactively considered costs related to participation, and enhanced utilization through informed decision-making.

Communication, perception, and use of personalized side-effect risks in prostate cancer treatment-decision making: An observational and interview study

OBJECTIVE

We investigated how healthcare professionals (HPs) communicate personalized risks of treatment side-effects to patients with localized prostate cancer during consultations, and explored how these patients perceive and use such risks during treatment decision-making.

METHODS

Patient consultations with nurse practitioners and urologists discussing personalized risks of urinary incontinence after prostatectomy were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients (n = 27) were then interviewed to explore their perceptions and use of personalized side-effect risks.

RESULTS

HPs explained personalized risks by discussing risk factors, which was appreciated and recalled by patients. Personalized risks were typically communicated both numerically and verbally (70%). When using numbers, HPs always used percentages, but rarely used natural frequencies (14%). Uncertainty was disclosed in only 34% of consultations. One-third of patients used personalized risks in their treatment decision-making by either switching to another treatment or sticking to their initial preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients value and use personalized side-effect risks during treatment decision-making. Clearly explaining the relationship between risk factors and personalized risk estimates may help patients understand and recall those. Practice implications HPs should not only give patients specific and precise numerical risk information, but should also put effort in explaining how the personalized side-effect risks are determined.

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

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

Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts

BACKGROUND

Decision aid developers have to convey complex task-specific numeric information in a way that minimizes bias and promotes understanding of the options available within a particular decision. Whereas our companion paper summarizes fundamental issues, this article focuses on more complex, task-specific aspects of presenting numeric information in patient decision aids.

METHODS

As part of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards third evidence update, we gathered an expert panel of 9 international experts who revised and expanded the topics covered in the 2013 review working in groups of 2 to 3 to update the evidence, based on their expertise and targeted searches of the literature. The full panel then reviewed and provided additional revisions, reaching consensus on the final version.

RESULTS

Five of the 10 topics addressed more complex task-specific issues. We found strong evidence for using independent event rates and/or incremental absolute risk differences for the effect size of test and screening outcomes. Simple visual formats can help to reduce common judgment biases and enhance comprehension but can be misleading if not well designed. Graph literacy can moderate the effectiveness of visual formats and hence should be considered in tool design. There is less evidence supporting the inclusion of personalized and interactive risk estimates.

DISCUSSION

More complex numeric information. such as the size of the benefits and harms for decision options, can be better understood by using incremental absolute risk differences alongside well-designed visual formats that consider the graph literacy of the intended audience. More research is needed into when and how to use personalized and/or interactive risk estimates because their complexity and accessibility may affect their feasibility in clinical practice.

Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of "basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence"; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain's definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids (N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid's evidence characteristics.

RESULTS

Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically.

RESULTS

We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality.

INTERPRETATION

Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.