Shared decision-making conversations and smoking cessation interventions: critical components of low-dose CT lung cancer screening programs

Lung cancer screening provider recommendation and completion in black and White patients with a smoking history in two healthcare systems: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality. LCS is underutilized. Black people who smoke tobacco have high risk of lung cancer but are less likely to be screened than are White people. This study reports provider recommendation and patient completion of LCS and colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) among patients by race to assess for utilization of LCS.

METHODS

3000 patients (oversampled for Black patients) across two healthcare systems (in Rhode Island and Minnesota) who had a chart documented age of 55 to 80 and a smoking history were invited to participate in a survey about cancer screening. Logistic regression analysis compared the rates of recommended and received cancer screenings.

RESULTS

1177 participants responded (42% response rate; 45% White, 39% Black). 24% of respondents were eligible for LCS based on USPSTF2013 criteria. One-third of patients eligible for LCS reported that a doctor had recommended screening, compared to 90% of patients reporting a doctor recommended CRCS. Of those recommended screening, 88% reported completing LCS vs. 83% who reported completion of a sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy. Black patients were equally likely to receive LCS recommendations but less likely to complete LCS when referred compared to White patients. There was no difference in completion of CRCS between Black and White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care providers rarely recommend lung cancer screening to patients with a smoking history. Systemic changes are needed to improve provider referral for LCS and to facilitate eligible Black people to complete LCS.

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.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography screening on lung cancer incidence and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review findings from clinical trials of lung cancer screening (LCS), assess contemporary issues with implementation in clinical practice, and review emerging strategies to increase the uptake and efficiency of LCS.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2013, the USPSTF recommended annual screening for individuals aged 55-80 years and currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years based on reduced mortality from lung cancer with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. Subsequent trials have demonstrated similar mortality outcomes in individuals with lower pack-year smoking histories. These findings, coupled with evidence for disparities in screening eligibility by race, resulted in updated guidelines by USPSTF to broaden eligibility criteria for screening. Despite this body of evidence, implementation in the United States has been suboptimal with fewer than 20% of eligible individuals receiving a screen. Barriers to efficient implementation are multifactorial and include patient, clinician, and system-level factors.

SUMMARY

Multiple randomized trials have established that annual LCS reduces mortality from lung cancer; however, several areas of uncertainty exist on the effectiveness of annual LDCT. Ongoing research is examining approaches to improve the uptake and efficiency of LCS, such as the use of risk-prediction models and biomarkers for identification of high-risk individuals.

Patient Perspectives of the Hospital Discharge Process: A Qualitative Study

Care transitions after hospitalization require communication across care teams, patients, and caregivers. As part of a quality improvement initiative, we conducted qualitative interviews with a diverse group of 53 patients who were recently discharged from a hospitalization within a safety net hospital to explore how patient preferences were included in the hospital discharge process and differences in the hospital discharge experience by race/ethnicity. Four themes emerged from participants regarding desired characteristics of interactions with the discharge team: (1) to feel heard, (2) inclusion in decision-making, (3) to be adequately prepared to care for themselves at home through bedside teaching, (4) and to have a clear and updated discharge timeline. Additionally, participants identified patient-level factors the discharge planning team should consider, including the social context, family involvement, health literacy, and linguistic barriers. Lastly, participants identified provider characteristics, such as a caring and empathetic bedside manner, that they found valuable in the discharge process. Our findings highlight the need for shared decision-making in the discharge planning process to improve both patient safety and satisfaction.

The natural growth history of persistent pulmonary subsolid nodules: Radiology, genetics, and clinical management

The high detection rate of pulmonary subsolid nodules (SSN) is an increasingly crucial clinical issue due to the increased number of screening tests and the growing popularity of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The persistence of SSN strongly suggests the possibility of malignancy. Guidelines have been published over the past few years and guide the optimal management of SSNs, but many remain controversial and confusing for clinicians. Therefore, in-depth research on the natural growth history of persistent pulmonary SSN can help provide evidence-based medical recommendations for nodule management. In this review, we briefly describe the differential diagnosis, growth patterns and rates, genetic characteristics, and factors that influence the growth of persistent SSN. With the advancement of radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI) technology, individualized evaluation of SSN becomes possible. These technologies together with liquid biopsy, will promote the transformation of current diagnosis and follow-up strategies and provide significant progress in the precise management of subsolid nodules in the early stage of lung cancer.

Primary Care Physician Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) supports lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for patients who undergo shared decision-making (SDM) about LCS. Unfortunately, SDM and LCS rates are low in primary care, and, as a result, the potential benefits of LCS are not being realized. The research team interviewed 16 primary care physicians in a large urban medical center (7 in Family and Community Medicine and 9 in Internal Medicine) on their views of SDM and LCS. Interview audio-recordings were transcribed. Coders analyzed the interview transcripts independently using direct content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. Results of interview analyses show that physicians were aware of LCS but believed that they and their patients would benefit from receiving more information about screening guidelines. Physicians knew about SDM and felt that SDM performance could help to identify issues that are important to patients and may affect their receptivity to LCS. However, many physicians expressed concerns about the time required for SDM and completing SDM about LCS when other issues need to be addressed. They also acknowledged the challenge of engaging patients, especially those with low health literacy, in SDM. In practice, some physicians reported instead of engaging eligible patients in SDM, they simply encourage them to screen. Importantly, most physicians said that they would like to receive training in SDM. Findings from this study indicate that primary care physicians support the dissemination of information about LCS and understand the importance of SDM. Physicians also feel that performing SDM in routine care is challenging but are receptive to additional training in SDM. Health systems should take steps to support SDM and LCS performance in primary care.

Explainable Machine Learning Solution for Observing Optimal Surgery Timings in Thoracic Cancer Diagnosis

In this paper, we introduce an AI-based procedure to estimate and assist in choosing the optimal surgery timing, in the case of a thoracic cancer diagnostic, based on an explainable machine learning model trained on a knowledge base. This decision is usually taken by the surgeon after examining a set of clinical parameters and their evolution in time. Therefore, it is sometimes subjective, it depends heavily on the previous experience of the surgeon, and it might not be confirmed by the histopathological exam. Therefore, we propose a pipeline of automatic processing steps with the purpose of inferring the prospective result of the histopathologic exam, generating an explanation of why this inference holds, and finally, evaluating it against the conclusive opinion of an experienced surgeon. To obtain an accurate practical result, the training dataset is labeled manually by the thoracic surgeon, creating a training knowledge base that is not biased towards clinical practice. The resulting intelligent system benefits from both the precision of a classical expert system and the flexibility of deep neural networks, and it is supposed to avoid, at maximum, any possible human misinterpretations and provide a factual estimate for the proper timing for surgical intervention. Overall, the experiments showed a 7% improvement on the test set compared with the medical opinion alone. To enable the reproducibility of the AI system, complete handling of a case study is presented from both the medical and technical aspects.

Shared Decision-making in the U.S.: Evidence exists, but implementation science must now inform policy for real change to occur

Shared decision making (SDM) is defined as an approach in which clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and in which patients are supported to consider options to achieve informed preferences [1]. Over the past decade, SDM has been increasingly recognized as a component of value-based care in the US. There is greater acceptance overall that SDM is a key strategy for achieving patient-centered care, enhancing patient safety, and achieving the triple aim of better health, better care, and lower costs [2]. Essential elements of SDM include recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence on risks and benefits; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision [3]. This paper provides an update of our previous review of SDM in the US published in 2017. We describe changes in healthcare policies to support SDM at the federal and state levels, the integration of SDM into clinical practice, and the role of implementation science to advance SDM. Finally, we discuss potential next steps to inform policies for SDM and facilitate uptake of SDM in clinical practice.

Smoking cessation services and shared decision-making practices among lung cancer screening facilities: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how screening facilities are meeting the requirements for the reimbursement of lung cancer screening from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including 1) the collection and submission of data to the CMS-approved registry (American College of Radiology [ACR] Lung Cancer Screening Registry), 2) the verification of a counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit having occurred as part of the written order for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, and 3) the offering of smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

The authors identified facilities in a southwestern state that were listed by either the ACR Lung Cancer Screening Registry or the GO2 Foundation Centers of Excellence. To select facilities, they used 2 purposive sampling approaches: maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling. They surveyed facilities from February to November 2019.

RESULTS

There were 87 facilities contacted, and a total of 63 facilities representing 32 counties across Texas completed the survey. Nearly all facilities used Lung-RADS to classify nodules (92%; n = 58) and submitted data to a CMS-approved registry (92%; n = 57). Most facilities verified that the counseling and SDM visit had occurred (86%; n = 54). Although slightly more than half of the facilities reported always providing self-help cessation materials (68%; n = 42), similar or higher proportions of facilities reported that they never referred smokers to onsite cessation services (68%; n = 42) or quitlines (77%; n = 47), provided cessation counseling (81%; n = 50), or recommended medications (85%; n = 52).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, screening facilities are meeting CMS requirements for screening, but they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self-help materials.

Examining Tobacco Treatment Perceptions and Barriers among Black versus Non-Black Adults Attending Lung Cancer Screening

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening for patients at high risk based on age and smoking history. Understanding the characteristics of patients attending lung cancer screening, including potential barriers to quitting smoking, may inform ways to engage these high-risk patients in tobacco treatment and address health disparities. Patients attending lung cancer screening who currently smoke cigarettes completed a survey at Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale-New Haven (N = 74) and the Medical University of South Carolina (N = 73) at the time of their appointment. The survey assessed demographics, smoking history, and perceptions and concerns about quitting smoking.

Patients were 55 to 76 years old (mean = 63.3, SD = 5.3), N = 64 (43.5%) female, and N = 31 (21.1%) non-Hispanic Black. Patients smoked 16.3 cigarettes per day on average (SD = 9.2) and rated interest in quitting smoking in the next month as moderate (mean = 5.6, SD = 3.1, measured from 0 = "very definitely no" to 10 = "very definitely yes"). The most frequently endorsed concerns about quitting smoking were missing smoking (70.7%), worry about having strong urges to smoke (63.9%), and concerns about withdrawal symptoms (59.9%). In comparison with other races/ethnicities, Black patients were less likely to report concerns about withdrawal symptoms and more likely to report smoking less now and perceiving no need to quit. Findings identified specific barriers for tobacco treatment and differences by race/ethnicity among patients attending lung cancer screening, including concerns about withdrawal symptoms and perceived need to quit. Identifying ways to promote tobacco treatment is important for reducing morbidity and mortality among this high-risk population.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

The current study examines patient characteristics and tobacco treatment perceptions and barriers among patients attending lung cancer screening who continue to smoke cigarettes that may help inform ways to increase treatment engagement and address tobacco-related health disparities to reduce morbidity and mortality from smoking.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Theoretical model and measurement of shared decision making in web-based pharmaceutical care consultation

Objectives

We aimed to construct a theoretical model and an observer-based measurement of shared decision making (SDM) in web-based pharmaceutical care consultation.

Methods

We first constructed a theoretical model through analysis of SDM models and interviews with 24 key informants. Then, the initial measurement was formulated, and the content was evaluated by 16 key informants alone. A cross-sectional study was executed, where 300 provider-patient encounters were collected at the online platform ‘Good Doctor Website’, for reliability and validity assessment. Content validity was evaluated by appropriateness score, that is the median of 7–9 and without disagreement. Interrater reliability was evaluated by Spearman correlation coefficient using 30 out of 300 samples. Single indicator validity was tested by Pearson correlation analysis, and convergent validity was evaluated by the Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model using 300 samples.

Results

Theoretical model constructed included four elements: ‘comprehensive understanding of the patient's condition’, ‘exchanging ideas on medication options’, ‘achieving a medication plan’, and ‘providing decision support’. Measurement constructed included four dimensions and 19 items, and four dimensions were in accordance with four elements of the theoretical model. We found median scores of these dimensions and items were 7–9 and without disagreement, indicating good content validity. Spearman correlation coefficients of 19 items were greater than 0.750, suggesting good interrater reliability. Pearson coefficients between 19 items and their external variables were significant (p < 0.001), and MIMIC model results showed that the R² values of dimensions 1–4 were over 0.5, indicating good single indicator validity and convergent validity.

Conclusions

Characteristics of web-based pharmaceutical care consultation, highlighting the importance of medication history, medication regimen, and detailed medication plan, were observed in the theoretical model. Measurement constructed had good reliability and validity and may be used by health policymakers to improve the quality of pharmaceutical care consultation online.

Managing screening-detected subsolid nodules-the Asian perspective

The broad application of low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening has resulted in the detection of many small pulmonary nodules. In Asia, a large number of these detected nodules with a radiological ground glass pattern are reported as lung adenocarcinomas or premalignant lesions, especially among female non-smokers. In this review article, we discuss controversial issues and conditions involving these subsolid pulmonary nodules that we often face in Asia, including a lack or insufficiency of current guidelines; the roles of preoperative biopsy and imaging; the location of lesions; appropriate selection of localization techniques; the roles of dissection and sampling of frozen sections and lymph nodes; multifocal lesions; and the roles of non-surgical treatment modalities. For these complex issues, we have tried to present up-to-date evidence and our own opinions regarding the management of subsolid nodules. It is our hope that this article helps surgeons and physicians to manage the complex issues involving ground glass nodules (GGNs) in a balanced manner in their daily practice and provokes further discussion towards better guidelines and/or algorithms.

Smoking cessation and shared decision-making practices about lung cancer screening among primary care providers

Objective

We describe primary care providers’ current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS).

Methods

Family, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns.

Results

Of 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow‐ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision‐making about LCS, although only about one‐third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04).

Conclusions

Within the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow‐up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision‐making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.

Screening for Lung Cancer

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography provides an opportunity to save lives by early detection of the deadliest cancer in the United States. Uptake of lung cancer screening has been quite low but may be improving. Clinician and patient education, integration of lung cancer screening protocols into electronic medical records, support for shared decision making and tobacco cessation, and improved communication between referral centers and clinicians are all important areas for improvement for lung cancer screening to reach its potential in improving morbidity and mortality from lung cancer.

Effectiveness of a Patient Education Class to Enhance Knowledge about Lung Cancer Screening: a Quality Improvement Evaluation

Best practices to facilitate high-quality shared decision-making for lung cancer screening (LCS) are not well established. In our LCS program, patients are first referred to attend a free group education class on LCS, taught by designated clinician specialists, before a personal shared decision-making visit is scheduled. We conducted an evaluation on  the effectiveness of this class to enhance patient knowledge and shared decision-making about LCS. For quality improvement purposes, participants were asked to complete one-page surveys immediately before and after class to assess knowledge and decision-making capacity regarding LCS. To evaluate knowledge gained, we tabulated the distributions of correct, incorrect, unsure, and missing responses to eight true-false statements included on both pre- and post-class surveys and assessed pre-post differences in the number of correct responses. To evaluate decision-making capacity, we tabulated the distributions of post-class responses to items on decision uncertainty. From June 2017 to August 2018, 680 participants completed both pre- and post-class surveys. Participants had generally poor baseline knowledge about LCS. The proportion who responded correctly to each knowledge-related statement increased pre- to post-class, with a mean difference of 0.9 (paired t test, p < 0.0001) in the total number of correct responses between surveys. About 70% reported having all the information needed to make a screening decision. Our results suggest that a well-designed group education class is an effective system-level approach for initially educating and equipping patients with appropriate knowledge to make informed decisions about LCS.

[Research Progress on Lung Cancer Screening]

肺癌是世界上最常见的恶性肿瘤，其5年生存率仅为19.7%，严重威胁人类健康。肺癌筛查是降低肺癌死亡率的有效措施，已有的研究证明用低剂量螺旋计算机断层扫描（low-dose computed tomography, LDCT）进行筛查可降低20%的肺癌死亡，目前国际和国内均建议进行肺癌筛查。研究肺癌筛查的发展现状有助于我们明确肺癌的高危人群，探索合理的筛查方案，提高筛查的成本效益，减轻经济负担。因此本文就肺癌筛查现状、肺癌筛查的成本效益以及存在的问题综述如下。

Predicting Risk of Recurrence After Colorectal Cancer Surgery in the United States: An Analysis of a Special Commission on Cancer National Study

BACKGROUND

Several factors can affect the risk of recurrence after curative resection of colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to develop a risk model for recurrence after definitive treatment of Stage I-III CRC using data from a nationally representative database and to develop an individualized web-based risk calculator.

METHODS

A random sample of patients who underwent resection for Stage I-III CRC between 2006 and 2007 at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited centers were included. Primary data regarding first recurrence was abstracted from medical records and merged with the National Cancer Database. Multivariable cox regression analysis was used to test for factors associated with cancer recurrence, stratified by stage. Model performance was tested by c statistic and calibration plots. Hazard Ratios were utilized to develop an individualized web-based recurrence prediction tool.

RESULTS

A total of 8249 patients from 1175 CoC centers were included. Of these, 1656 (20.1%) patients had a recurrence during 5 years of follow-up. Median time to recurrence was 16 months. The final predictive models displayed excellent discrimination and calibration with concordance indexes of 0.7. The online calculator included 12 variables, including tumor site, stage, time since surgery, and surveillance intensity. Output is displayed numerically and graphically with an icon array.

CONCLUSIONS

Using primarily abstracted recurrence data from a random sample of patients treated for CRC at CoC accredited centers across the United States, we successfully created an individualized CRC recurrence risk assessment tool. This web-based calculator can be used by physicians and patients in shared decision making to guide management discussions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT02217865.

Smoking-Cessation Interventions After Lung Cancer Screening Guideline Change

INTRODUCTION

Recent guideline changes for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography recommend smoking-cessation interventions be done in parallel with screening. The purpose of this study is to determine the post-guideline rates of smoking-cessation interventions among patients eligible and ineligible for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Using electronic health records collected from a large ambulatory care system in northern California between 2010 and 2017, authors identified new patients who were current smokers aged 55-80 years visiting a primary care provider, and grouped patients into lung cancer screening-eligible heavy smokers, screening-ineligible moderate smokers, and screening-ineligible light smokers. Screening-eligible smokers versus screening-ineligible smokers were compared in receipt of smoking-cessation interventions before (2010-2013) and after (2014-2017) the guideline change, overall and by intervention type (formal counseling, informal counseling, pharmacotherapy) using hierarchical generalized linear models. Analyses were conducted in 2018-2019.

RESULTS

After the guideline change, the likelihood of receiving any smoking-cessation intervention (OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.28, 1.61, p<0.05), informal counseling (OR=1.29, 95% CI=1.15, 1.46, p<0.05), and pharmacotherapy (OR=1.24, 95% CI=1.02, 1.50, p<0.05) during a new patient visit significantly increased, with the increase not varying by level of smoking. For formal counseling, the post-guideline increase was greater for screening-eligible heavy smokers (OR=3.15, 95% CI=1.18, 8.36, p<0.05) and moderate smokers (OR=3.58, 95% CI=1.29, 9.95, p<0.05) relative to light smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking-cessation interventions increased after new lung cancer screening guidelines. Given the sizable adverse impacts of smoking on morbidity and mortality, small increases in the implementation of smoking-cessation interventions could have substantial public health benefits.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium

Numerous organizations, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT for high risk adults who meet specific criteria. Despite recommendations and national coverage for screening eligible adults through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, LCS uptake in the United States remains low (<4%). In recognition of the need to improve and understand LCS across the population, as part of the larger Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening PRocess (PROSPR) consortium, the NCI (Bethesda, MD) funded the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium consisting of five diverse healthcare systems in Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Using various methods and data sources, the center aims to examine utilization and outcomes of LCS across diverse populations, and assess how variations in the implementation of LCS programs shape outcomes across the screening process. This commentary presents the PROSPR LCS process model, which outlines the interrelated steps needed to complete the screening process from risk assessment to treatment. In addition to guiding planned projects within the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium, this model provides insights on the complex steps needed to implement, evaluate, and improve LCS outcomes in community practice.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report.

RESULTS

Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

Incidence, prognostic factors, and a nomogram of lung cancer with bone metastasis at initial diagnosis: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Bone is one of the common metastatic sites of lung cancer, and its prognosis is not optimistic. We performed a study to evaluate the incidence, survival, and prognostic factors of lung cancer with bone metastasis (LCBM) at initial diagnosis, and to develop a nomogram to predict its outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study choosing 13,541 patients with LCBM from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registry database. An X-tile analysis provided the optimal age cutoff point. The incidence, overall survival, and prognosis of bone metastasis were evaluated according to the patient information, characteristics of the tumor, and therapy. We also used multivariable Cox regression to estimate mortality hazard ratios (HRs) among patients with LCBM, while a visual nomogram was established to judge the prognosis.

RESULTS

The incidence of disease increased with age, but survival rates show the opposite trend. The median survival time was about 4 months. In addition, although the differences for patient race is not significant (P=0.445), White patients are prone to have bone metastases from lung cancer according to the incidence analysis. The difference for laterality is also not significant (P=0.534), while the factors of age, gender, the total number of sites, histological types, grade, tumor size, and treatment are significantly related to the outcome of patients with LCBM. Furthermore, our nomogram could predict the probability of surviving to the median survival time of the population with a c-index of 0.72.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, characteristics of the tumor, and therapy should be considered for prediction of prognosis for patients with lung cancer bone metastasis. Putatively, the younger patients and the patients with chemotherapy and surgery may indicate improved survival.

Design of a Community-Based Lung Cancer Education, Prevention, and Screening Program

Uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is extremely low. Efforts to promote screening are warranted, especially among disparate groups such as racial/ethnic minorities and those of lower socioeconomic status. This article describes the design and implementation strategies of the ongoing cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education (c-CARE) program. The purpose of c-CARE is to increase community awareness of lung cancer screening through education. Community health workers were trained to implement the intervention in 12 community sites. The Health Belief Model guided the evaluation and intervention development methods. Aims include changing participants' knowledge, attitude, and beliefs related to lung cancer and increasing lung cancer early detection and prevention behaviors by identifying and connecting high-risk and/or nicotine-dependent individuals to LDCT screening and/or tobacco cessation services. If effective, these methods could model increased dissemination to other high-risk communities.