Real-world Clinical Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening-Evaluating Processes to Improve Screening Guidelines-Concordance

Nikki M Carroll,Andrea N Burnett-Hartman,Caroline A Joyce,William Kinnard,Eric J Harker,Virginia Hall,Julie S Steiner,Erica Blum-Barnett,Debra P Ritzwoller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05539-w

Abstract:Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) requires complex processes to identify eligible patients, provide appropriate follow-up, and manage findings. It is unclear whether LCS in real-world clinical settings will realize the same benefits as the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Objective: To evaluate the impact of process modifications on compliance with LCS guidelines during LCS program implementation, and to compare patient characteristics and outcomes with those in NLST. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO), a non-profit integrated healthcare system. Patients: A total of 3375 patients who underwent a baseline lung cancer screening low-dose computed tomography (S-LDCT) scan between May 2014 and June 2017. Measurements: Among those receiving an S-LDCT, proportion who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria before and after LCS process modifications, differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between KPCO LCS patients and the NLST cohort, and factors associated with a positive screen. Results: After modifying LCS eligibility confirmation processes, patients receiving S-LDCT who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria increased from 45.6 to 92.7% (P < 0.001). Prior to changes, patients were older (68 vs. 67 years; P = 0.001), less likely to be current smokers (51.3% vs. 52.5%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have a ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history (50.0% vs. 95.3%; P < 0.001). Compared with NLST participants, KPCO LCS patients were older (67 vs. 60 years; P < 0.001), more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 48.1%; P < 0.001), and more likely to have pulmonary disease. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, the lung cancer detection rate was higher at KPCO (9.4% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.001) and was positively associated with prior pulmonary disease. Conclusion: Adherence to LCS guidelines requires eligibility confirmation procedures. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, comorbidity burden and lung cancer detection rates were notably higher than in NLST, suggesting that the study of long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LCS in real-world clinical settings is warranted.