Treatment of facial injuries and deformities.

C. L. Straith,R. Straith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-195406000-00033

1953-09-01

Postgraduate Medicine

Abstract:Which facial deformities can be improved and when operation should be done are of vital concern to patients so afflicted. This article deals with the correction of numerous deformities so as to increase considerably the mental well-being and economic independence of these persons.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Lung Cancer Screening Uptake Under the Revised United States Preventive Service Task Force Guideline: Assessing Disparities

Abdi T. Gudina,Charles S. Kamen,Kelly A. Hirko,David H. Adler,Deborah J. Ossip,Edith M. Williams,Vinay K. Cheruvu,Ana-Paula Cupertino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-24-0725

2024-09-15

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Background: Scanning with low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality by 20% among high-risk individuals. Despite its efficacy, the uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) remains low. Our study aimed to estimate state-level and nationwide LCS rates among eligible individuals and to assess disparities in LCS uptake. Methods: Data for this study were obtained from the 2022 BRFSS. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to model the associations between predictors and outcome variables and to examine LCS variability across states. Results: Of the 28,071 participants eligible for LCS, 17.24% underwent LCS. Participants aged 65 -79 years were (OR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.54 -1.99) more likely to undergo LCS than their younger counterparts. Those who were female (OR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.73 - 0.94), divorced, separated, or widowed (OR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.74-0.98), without health insurance (OR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.22-0.53), without a primary care provider (OR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.19-0.44), without COPD or those who did not disclose their COPD status ((OR: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.31-0.40) and (OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.19-0.73) respectively)) were less likely to undergo LCS than their respective counterparts. LCS uptake also varied significantly across U.S. states. Conclusions: We observed low uptake of LCS overall, and significant variability in LCS uptake by sociodemographic and health-related factors as well as by state of residence. Impact: The findings from this study have important implications for community health workers and healthcare clinicians and indicate the need to design effective interventions to increase LCS uptake targeting specific subgroups of populations and particular U.S. states.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Prevalence of USPSTF Recommended Cancer Screenings Among Individuals Eligible For Lung Cancer Screening: An Analysis of the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey

EA Hirsch,WE Zahnd,JM Eberth,JL Studts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-23-0373

2024-05-19

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose CT (LDCT) is the newest cancer screening modality recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and currently remains largely underutilized with uptake rates <20% among eligible individuals. As LCS continues to be integrated into routine public health practice, it is important to understand the context of cancer screenings among LCS-eligible individuals. The purpose of this study was to quantify rates of USPSTF recommended cancer screenings (lung, colorectal, breast, cervical) among LCS-eligible individuals. Methods: Data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were used to estimate weighted percentages of being up-to-date with USPSTF recommended cancer screenings among all individuals eligible for LCS using 2013 USPSTF guidelines using the eight states who included the optional LCS module (Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia). Rates were additionally calculated separately for individuals compliant and non-compliant with LCS. Cancer screening eligibility was defined by USPSTF guideline variables available in the BRFSS, and rates were calculated using LCS-eligible subsets that matched screening eligibility (i.e., ages <75 for colorectal and <65 for cervical). Results: The study sample included 2,793 LCS-eligible individuals. Among these individuals, 16.5% of men and 20.2% of women, reported having a LDCT within the past 12 months. Comparatively, 63.0% of LCS-eligible men were up-to-date for colorectal screening, and 65.9%, 71.7%, and 60.4% of LCS-eligible women were up-to-date on colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, respectively. Rates of being up-to-date for colorectal, breast, and cervical screenings were universally higher among women compliant with LCS compared to non-compliant with LCS, and significantly greater for colorectal screening among men compliant with LCS compared to non-compliant (84.5% vs. 58.9%, Wald P value = 0.003). Conclusions: Rates of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings are higher than LCS among individuals eligible for LCS, highlighting important opportunities to improve LCS and subsequently reducing lung cancer mortality.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LOW-DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY LUNG CANCER SCREENING IN THE UNITED STATES

Tung-Sung Tseng,Chien-Ching Li,Hui-Yi Lin,Yu-wen Chiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igad104.2534

2023-12-01

Innovation in Aging

Abstract:Abstract Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is recommended for high-risk smokers to decrease lung cancer-related mortality. In the US, the uptake of LDCT screening among eligible smokers is suboptimal. The impacts of social-environmental and individual factors on LDCT screening uptake are not clear. The current study investigated multi-level factors associated with the utilization of LDCT screening using national data. Methods: The 2017-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data and other state-level variables (Medicaid expansion status and the number of screening facilities) were applied. Our study outcome is the utilization of LDCT screening among study participants who met the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for lung cancer screening. The final study sample consisted of 15640 respondents from 29 states. All analyses were weighted to account for the complex sampling design applied in BRFSS. Results: The overall utilization rate of LDCT screening is only 18.4%. The LDCT utilization rate varied by state (6.2 -31.1%). Among the respondents, individuals who were employed, never married, had good health status, didn’t have personal physician, experienced cost problems, never had routine checkups, and did not experience certain chronic conditions (cancer, asthma, COPD) had a lower utilization rate of LDCT screening compare with their counterpart. Conclusion: Utilization of LDCT screening among eligible smokers remains low. Risk factors associated with LDCT screening identified from this study can be used to guide future lung cancer screening programs or revise the LDCT screening guidelines to meet the needs of high-risk smokers.
Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Use: A Population Health Perspective of One Community

Tina D Tailor,Norma E Farrow,Junheng Gao,Kingshuk R Choudhury,Betty C Tong,Tina D. Tailor,Norma E. Farrow,Kingshuk R. Choudhury,Betty C. Tong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.82.5.321

2021-09-01

North Carolina Medical Journal

Abstract:BACKGROUND Low-dose chest CT (LDCT) is the only effective screening test for lung cancer. Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for individuals at high risk for primary lung neoplasm.METHODS We retrospectively identified patients receiving LCS from January 2016 through March 2018 whose residential addresses were within our health center's county. We estimated driving distance from the patient's address to our health center and obtained sociodemographic characteristics from the electronic health record (EHR). The census-tract-level LCS-eligible population size was estimated, and their population characteristics determined via US Census Bureau, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to determine differences amongst the LCS-eligible and LCS-enrolled populations. Multivariable regression was used to determine the effects of sociodemographic characteristics on LCS eligibility.RESULTS There was modest correlation between census-tract-level LCS-eligible population size and LCS enrollment (r = 0.68, P < .001). 5.9% (364/6185) of the estimated LCS-eligible population in our county received LCS, with census-tract LCS rates ranging from 1.5% to 12.5%. Nonwhite race status (Hispanic and African American) was associated with decreased likelihood of LCS enrollment compared to White race (OR = 95% CI, 0.765 [0.61, 0.95] and 0.031 [0.008, 0.124], respectively). Older age, Medicaid, and uninsured statuses were positively correlated with LCS eligibility (P ≤ .01).LIMITATIONS This analysis comprises a single county. Other LCS facilities within our health system in neighboring counties, as well as individuals receiving LCS outside of our health system, are not captured.CONCLUSIONS The uptake of LCS remains low, with disproportionately lower screening rates amongst Hispanic and African American populations. Medicaid and uninsured patients in our community are also more likely to be LCS-eligible. These populations may be targets for interventions aimed at increasing LCS awareness and uptake.
Abstract B046: Factors influencing patient decision-making to complete Low Dose CT screening for lung cancer

Kathleen Dwyer,Zsolt Nagykaldi,Mark Doescher,Dorothy A. Rhoades

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-b046

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:As part of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) to increase lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT scan (LDCT) within the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma's tribal health system, we conducted a qualitative study to explore the barriers behind patient decisions to forego screening. Thirty eligible participants who had been in the RCT for at least one year were identified as LCS completers (n=7) or non-completers (n=23). A single interviewer completed all interviews using a semi-structured interview guide, designed to explore experiences, barriers/facilitators to LCS, factors influencing screening decisions, and suggested strategies for expanding the LCS program into the community. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Most non-completers reported having no conversations about the availability of LCS with their primary care provider (PCP) or receiving any information about the LCS program. In contrast, the completers all reported PCP-initiated discussions about the LCS program, their risk factors, and an overview of the testing process. Key themes that emerged included fears, e.g., being unsure about what the test involves, afraid of being diagnosed with lung cancer and what might follow, and afraid of dying. Some voiced concerns, e.g., feeling guilty as active smokers and being stigmatized should they be diagnosed with lung cancer. Many participants posited that there was no reason for screening without symptoms. Lack of understanding, especially about cancer care, was identified as a contributing factor. Suggested strategies to increase the reach into the community included using existing infrastructure within Choctaw Nation, such as disseminating information through the tribal newsletter, inserts in prescription refills, and notifications via the patient portal. Community education programs at local community centers, particularly around senior citizen meals, were offered as strategies to change the perception that lung cancer is a death sentence. Hosting an informational booth at the annual tribal Labor Day festival was commonly suggested. In conclusion, multiple reasons were cited for forgoing LDCT screening. In this tribal setting, findings are similar to ones documented in other settings. This suggests that interventions to overcome these challenges may build off known evidence-based interventions, such as the recommendations for cancer prevention documented by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Addressing fears through multiple educational approaches and adapting strategies from the American Lung Association to address stigma could lead to enhanced interventions. Finally, capitalizing on tribal resources (newsletter) and tribal events to increase LCS awareness may be promising strategies to improve screening in the local tribal setting. Citation Format: Kathleen Dwyer, Zsolt Nagykaldi, Mark Doescher, Dorothy A. Rhoades. Factors influencing patient decision-making to complete Low Dose CT screening for lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr B046.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States

Stacey A Fedewa,Ella A Kazerooni,Jamie L Studts,Robert Smith,Priti Bandi,Ann Goding Sauer,Megan Cotter,Helmneh M Sineshaw,Ahmedin Jemal,Gerard A Silvestri,Robert A Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa170

2020-11-12

Abstract:Abstract Background Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018. Methods The American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year. Results Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation’s highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%). Conclusions Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.
Risk Factors for Lung Cancer in an Underrepresented Safety-Net Screening Cohort

Sarah Singh,Flaminio Pavesi,Katrina Steiling,Sainath Asokan,Cisco Espinosa,Howard J Cabral,Eric J Burks,Amanda Meister,Ogheneyoma Akpoviroro,Anne Buck,Kelly Drozdowicz,Virginia R Litle,Kei Suzuki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2021.07.009

Abstract:Introduction/background: The USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) guidelines suggest criteria centering on smoking status and age to select patients for lung cancer screening. Despite the significant advances in screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), cancer detection rate is low (1.1%), highlighting the need to investigate possible ways to refine the current lung cancer screening strategy. Our aim was to determine clinical risk factors predictive of lung cancer in an urban safety-net hospital. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 2847 patients who received LDCT screening for lung cancer between 3/1/2015 and 12/31/2019. Patient demographics and medical history were collected. A bivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of lung cancer. Results: Compared to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) population, our screening cohort had significantly more African Americans (38.2% vs. 4.5%, P < .0001), more obesity (32.7% vs. 28.3%, P < .0001), and higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (45.9% vs. 5.0%, P < .0001). The strongest predictors of lung cancer were COPD (odds ratio [OR] = 2.14, P < .0001) and a family history of lung cancer (OR = 2.77, P < .0001). Age (OR = 1.04, P< .001) and pack years (OR = 1.01, P< .001) were less predictive. Conclusion: A diagnosis of COPD and family history of lung cancer were most predictive of lung cancer in a screening cohort at our urban safety-net hospital. Future studies should focus on whether inclusion of these additional risk-factors improves proportion of lung cancer detected via screening.
Patient-provider Lung Cancer Screening Discussions: An analysis of a National Survey

Niki Nourmohammadi,Trinity Hsiao Pei Liang,Gelareh Sadigh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2024.02.008

IF: 4.84

2024-03-04

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:Background : The US Preventative Service Task Force (USPSTF) updated their lung cancer screening (LCS) recommendations with annual low-dose CT (LDCT) in 2021. We aimed to assess prevalence of patient-provider discussion about LCS and determine factors associated with such discussions. Materials and Methods : Using data from Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 2022 cycle 6, two cohorts were evaluated: (1) Potentially LCS-eligible, included participants at least 50 years old with a history of current or former smoking and no prior history of lung cancer; (2) LCS-ineligible individuals based on age (e.g., 18 to 49 years old), smoking history (e.g., never smoked) or history of lung cancer. We assessed association of demographic, clinical and social factors with LDCT discussion in a multivariable logistic regression model. Results : Among potentially LCS-eligible patients, 19% had never heard of LDCT and only 9.4% had discussed LCS with their provider within the past year. Those who accessed online patient portals were more likely to discuss LCS with their healthcare provider (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.67, 10.81; P, 0.003), as were respondents with a history of current (vs. former) smoking (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.21, 8.19; P, 0.019). Among LCS-ineligible, 1.9% discussed LCS with their providers. Individuals with a personal history of cancer (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 1.65, 27.19; P, 0.009), and those who discussed colorectal cancer screening (OR, 5.74; 95% CI, 1.63, 20.14; P, 0.007) were more likely to discuss LCS with their provider. Conclusion : Despite updated USPSTF recommendations, rates of patient-provider LCS remains low. Multi-level interventions to address barriers to LCS are needed.

oncology
Lung Cancer Yield Among Those Undergoing Lung Cancer Screening in Community-based Healthcare Systems

AN Burnett-Hartman,KA Rendle,C Saia,RT Greenlee,NM Carroll,SA Honda,BP Hixon,RY Kim,C Neslund-Dudas,C Oshiro,K Wain,DP Ritzwoller,A Vachani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-23-0371

2024-05-19

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Purpose: Lung cancer screening (LCS) via low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for those with a high risk of lung cancer based on age and smoking history has been recommended in the United States for almost a decade, but performance of LCS in community-based settings is unclear. We aimed to estimate the proportion of those screened who were diagnosed with lung cancer across five healthcare systems in the United States. Methods: Study participants were LCS-eligible individuals who received care and a baseline LCS LDCT within the five healthcare systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). We collected data on LDCT utilization and results, as well as patient characteristics and smoking history, via electronic health records. LCS LDCT findings were categorized using Lung-RADS [negative (1), benign (2), probably benign (3), or suspicious (4)]. Lung cancer diagnoses occurring within 12 months of a baseline LDCT were ascertained via cancer registry data. Our preliminary analyses, presented here, includes estimates of lung cancer yield, overall, and by Lung-RADS category, among those receiving a baseline LDCT 2014–2018. Data collection through 2021 is underway and final analyses will include data through 2021. Results: There were 8,682 patients with a baseline scan included in analyses. Of these, 47% were female, 52% were ages 65+, and the ethnic and racial distribution was: 4% Hispanic, 2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 4% Asian, 14% Black, and 74% White. There were 142 (1.6%) patients diagnosed with lung cancer within 12-months of their baseline LDCT. Among those with negative LCS LDCT findings, Lung-RADS 1 (n = 1,987) or Lung-RADS 2 (n = 5,232), there were 1 and 8 lung cancer diagnoses, respectively. Among those with positive LCS LDCT findings, Lung-RADS 3 (n = 906), Lung-RADS 4/4A (n = 363), or Lung-RADS 4B/4X (n = 194), 10 (1%), 35 (10%), and 88 (45%) were diagnosed with lung cancer, respectively. Conclusions: The proportion of those diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months of a baseline LDCT within community settings is similar to clinical trials settings, and use of Lung-RADS categorization in community settings appropriately stratifies patients into those with a low- vs. high-risk of prevalent lung cancer.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Barriers to Completing Low Dose Computed Tomography Scan for Lung Cancer Screening

Lye-Yeng Wong,Sania Choudhary,Ntemena Kapula,Margaret Lin,Irmina A. Elliott,Brandon A. Guenthart,Douglas Z. Liou,Leah M. Backhus,Mark F. Berry,Joseph B. Shrager,Natalie S. Lui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2024.04.014

IF: 4.84

2024-04-28

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:Introduction Annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals by detecting the disease at an earlier stage. This study aims to assess the barriers to completing LDCT in a cohort of patients who were determined eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS). Methods We performed a single institution, mixed methods, cross-sectional study of patients who had a LDCT ordered from July-December 2022. We then completed phone surveys with patients who did not complete LDCT to assess knowledge, attitude, and perceptions toward LCS. Results We identified 380 patients who met inclusion criteria, including 331 (87%) who completed LDCT and 49 (13%) who did not. Patients who completed a LDCT and those who did not were similar regarding age, sex, race, primary language, household income, body mass index, median pack years, and quit time. Positive predictors of LDCT completion were: meeting USPSTF guidelines (97.9% vs 81.6%), being married (58.3% vs 44.9%), former versus current smokers (55% vs 41.7%), personal history of emphysema (60.4% vs 42.9%), and family history of lung cancer (13.9% vs 4.1%) (all p<0.05). Of the patients who participated in the phone survey, only 7% of respondents thought they were high risk for developing lung cancer despite attending a shared decision-making visit and only 10% wanted to re-schedule their LDCT. Conclusion There exist barriers to completing LDCT even after patients are identified as eligible and complete a shared decision-making visit secondary to knowledge barriers, misperceptions, and patient disinterest. Microabstract Among those referred for lung cancer screening (LCS), studies show that 15-30% of patients do not complete low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and therefore lose out on the survival advantage that LCS offers. In our study, we found that the 13% of patients who did not complete LDCT were less likely to be married and more likely to be current smokers.

oncology
Assessing disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility among high-risk individuals.

Abdi Gudina,Charles Stewart Kamen,Nikesha Gilmore,Lee Kehoe,Ana Paula Cupertino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.10563

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:10563 Background: Low-dose computerized tomography (LDCT) scanning confers a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality by diagnosing the disease at earlier, more treatable stages. Racial/ethnic minorities have historically been less likely to be eligible for lung cancer screening. In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its 2013 guideline for lung cancer screening eligibility by reducing the minimum age (55 to 50) and decreasing the cumulative number of cigarette pack-years smoked (30 to 20). The purpose of this study was to assess if the updated guideline will mitigate disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility among high-risk individuals. Methods: Data were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017-2019), a population-based survey administered annually by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only subjects with complete information on the variables used to determine eligibility (age, smoking status, age at first start smoking, age at last smoked, average number of cigarettes smoked each day) (n = 793,537) were included in the final analysis. Logistic regression was used to model the association between predictors and 2021 vs. 2013 lung cancer screening eligibility. Results: Based on the 2013 guideline, Non-Hispanic Blacks (OR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.31 - 0.38), Hispanics (OR: 0.12; 95%CI: 0.10 – 0.14), and other racial/ethnic minorities (OR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.54 – 0.64) were less likely to be eligible for lung cancer screening than Non-Hispanic Whites. Using the 2021 guideline, Non-Hispanic Blacks (OR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.42 - 0.49), Hispanics (OR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.13 – 0.16), and other racial/ethnic minorities (OR: 0.63; 95%CI: 0.58 – 0.67) remain less likely to be eligible for lung cancer screening than Non-Hispanic Whites. Conclusions: The 2021 guideline slightly reduces racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility. Further efforts should be made to develop a guideline that better addresses disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility to reduce lung cancer deaths in racial minorities.

oncology
Abstract C113: Geographic variation in low-dose computed tomography scanning for lung cancer screening in the United States

Abdi T. Gudina,Lee A. Kehoe,Sara Hardy,Charles S. Kamen,Paula Cupertino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp23-c113

2023-12-01

Abstract:Abstract Background: Early detection using low-dose computed tomography scanning reduces lung cancer specific mortality by 20%. Despite its efficacy and its recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, the uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) among high-risk individuals (aged 55–80 years with a >30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the previous 15 years) remains low. The purpose of this study was to assess whether LCS uptake varies by geographic location. Methods: Data for this study were obtained from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. After excluding ineligible subjects, 10,242 subjects were included in the final analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to model the associations between the predictor and the outcome variable, adjusting for potential confounders. Results: In metropolitan statistical areas, individuals who reside outside the center city are less likely to receive LCS than those who reside in the center city (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43 – 0.98). Stratifying the data by race/ethnicity, we found a non-significant difference between Whites who reside in the center city and those outside the center city in LCS uptake (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.45 – 1.06). Among Blacks (OR:0.10; 95% CI: 0.02 – 0.59) and other minorities (OR:0.10; 95% CI: 0.02 – 0.63), individuals who reside outside the center city are less likely to receive LCS than their respective counterparts residing in the center city. Nevertheless, we found a non-significant difference in LCS uptake between urban and rural counties (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.76-1.48).Conclusions: LCS uptake is related to metropolitan statistical area (residents in the center city vs. outside the center city), but it is modified by race/ethnicity. This finding has important implications for policy makers and program planners in helping them design more effective interventions to promote LCS targeting racial/ethnic minorities residing outside the center city. Citation Format: Abdi T. Gudina, Lee A. Kehoe, Sara Hardy, Charles S. Kamen, Paula Cupertino. Geographic variation in low-dose computed tomography scanning for lung cancer screening in the United States [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr C113.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke

Kristin G. Maki,Kaiping Liao,Lisa M. Lowenstein,M. Angeles Lopez-Olivo,Robert J. Volk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683211067810

2021-07-01

Abstract:Background. Screening with low-dose computed tomography scans can reduce lung cancer deaths but uptake remains low. This study examines psychosocial factors associated with obtaining lung cancer screening (LCS) among individuals. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted with 13 state quitlines’ clients. Participants who met age and smoking history criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 6 months. Only participants randomized to the intervention group (a patient decision aid) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression was performed to identify determinants of obtaining LCS 6 months after the intervention. Results. There were 204 participants included in this study. Regarding individual attitudes, high and moderate levels of concern about overdiagnosis were associated with a decreased likelihood of obtaining LCS compared with lower levels of concern (high levels of concern, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–0.65; moderate levels of concern, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05–0.53). In contrast, higher levels of anticipated regret about not obtaining LCS and later being diagnosed with lung cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of being screened compared with lower levels of anticipated regret (OR 5.59, 95% CI 1.72–18.10). Other potential harms related to LCS were not significant. Limitations. Follow-up may not have been long enough for all individuals who wished to be screened to complete the scan. Additionally, participants may have been more health motivated due to recruitment via tobacco quitlines. Conclusions. Anticipated regret about not obtaining screening is associated with screening behavior, whereas concern about overdiagnosis is associated with decreased likelihood of LCS. Implications. Decision support research may benefit from further examining anticipated regret in screening decisions. Additional training and information may be helpful to address concerns regarding overdiagnosis.
Abstract A086: Disparities in lung cancer screening uptake across the United States

Abdi Gudina,M. Patricia Rivera,Charles Kamen,AnaPaula Cupertino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a086

2023-01-10

Abstract:Background: Despite the efficacy of low-dose computerized tomography (LDCT) to detect lung cancer early, the rate of lung cancer screening among high-risk individuals remains low. The purpose of this study was to assess lung cancer screening rates in contrast with state lung cancer mortality across the United States. Methods: Data for this study were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from three consecutive years (2018-2020); a population-based survey administered via cell phone and landline and conducted annually by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Eligibility criteria follow the 2013 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation: high-risk individuals aged 55-80 years with a >30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. After excluding ineligible subjects and those with missing information, 11,297 subjects were included in the final analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the predictor (i.e., state of residence) and the outcome variable (i.e., screening rate). Results: Of the 24 states included in this study, the states with the highest lung cancer screening rates were Rhode Island (24.75%), Vermont (22.51%), New Jersey (21.72%), Minnesota (21.64%), and Delaware (21.39%). The states with the lowest screening uptake were Oklahoma (9.23%), Utah (9.78%), West Virginia (12.23%), South Dakota (12.31%), and Kansas (12.41%). Kentucky has the highest lung cancer mortality and has become the 6th highest in screening rates. Utah has the lowest lung cancer mortality and is the second-lowest state in lung cancer screening rates. After adjusting for sociodemographic (i.e., age, gender, marital status, level of education, income, insurance, and race/ethnicity) and health-related factors (i.e., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking history, and primary care provider), high-risk individuals in the state of Delaware (OR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.50 - 5.41), Kentucky (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.03 - 4.04), Minnesota (OR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.49 - 5.06), Montana (OR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.09 - 4.25), New Jersey (OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.25 - 4.57), Pennsylvania (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.17 - 4.44), Rhode Island (OR: 2.57, 95% CI: 1.33 - 4.98), Texas (OR: 4.51, 95% CI: 2.04 - 9.97) and Vermont (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.61 - 6.28) were significantly more likely to receive lung cancer screening than those in Utah. High-risk individuals in all the remaining states were not significantly different in terms of their lung cancer screening rates compared to Utah. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening rates varied widely across 24 states and did not match with the lung cancer mortality burden in each state. The results from the present study highlights the importance of developing targeted initiatives and policies that enhance the rates of lung cancer screenings in the states that experience a disproportionate burden of lung cancer mortality. Citation Format: Abdi Gudina, M. Patricia Rivera, Charles Kamen, AnaPaula Cupertino. Disparities in lung cancer screening uptake across the United States [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr A086.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
A National Survey of Pulmonologists' Views on Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer

Jonathan M Iaccarino,Jack Clark,Rendelle Bolton,Linda Kinsinger,Michael Kelley,Christopher G Slatore,David H Au,Renda Soylemez Wiener

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201507-467OC

Abstract:Rationale: Multiple guidelines now recommend low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. Given their central role in the planning of LDCT screening programs, pulmonologists' beliefs about LDCT screening will affect the safety, cost-effectiveness, and success of LDCT screening implementation. Objectives: To assess pulmonologists' propensity to offer lung cancer screening and their perceptions about LDCT screening. Methods: We performed a national web-based survey, administered July 2013 to February 2014, among all staff pulmonologists active in Veterans Health Administration pulmonary clinics. The primary outcome was screening propensity (on the basis of responses to clinical vignettes) in relation to guidelines. Using bivariate and multinomial logistic regression, we assessed how perceptions of the evidence, trade-offs, and barriers to implementation of LDCT screening programs affected propensity to screen. Measurements and main results: Of 573 eligible pulmonologists e-mailed, 286 (49.9%) participated. Approximately one-half (52.4%) had a propensity for guideline-concordant screening, 22.7% for overscreening, and 24.9% for underscreening. In bivariate analyses, guideline concordance was associated with acceptance of trial evidence, guidelines, and the efficacy of screening. In multivariable models, underscreeners were more likely to cite the potential harms of screening (e.g., false-positive findings, radiation exposure, incidental findings, unfavorable cost-benefit ratio), as influential factors (relative risk, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.67) and were less influenced by trial evidence and guidelines (relative risk, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.2), as compared with guideline-concordant screeners. Local resource availability did not significantly affect screening propensity, but insufficient infrastructure and personnel were commonly perceived barriers to implementation. Conclusions: Pulmonologists have varied perceptions of the evidence and trade-offs of LDCT screening, leading to the potential for over- and underscreening. To minimize potential harms as LDCT screening is widely implemented, physicians must understand which patients are appropriate candidates and engage those patients in a shared decision-making process regarding the trade-offs of LDCT screening.
Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Utilization at Two Health Systems in the Southeastern US

Soumy J Niranjan,Desiree Rivers,Rekha Ramachandran,J Edward Murrell,Kayleigh C Curry,Mohammed Mubasher,Eric Flenaugh,Mark T Dransfield,Sejong Bae,Isabel C Scarinci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.12.24307248

2024-05-13

Abstract:Purpose : Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening is effective for reducing lung cancer mortality. It is critical to understand the lung cancer screening practices for screen-eligible individuals living in Alabama and Georgia where lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. High lung cancer incidence and mortality rates are attributed to high smoking rates among underserved, low income, and rural populations. Therefore, the purpose of this study: (1) to define sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were screened for lung cancer at an Academic Medical Center (AMC) in Alabama and a Safety Net Hospital (SNH) in Georgia. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patient electronic health records who received lung cancer screening between 2015 to 2020 was performed to identify the study population and outcome variable measures. Chi-square tests and Student t-tests were used to compare screening uptake across patient demographic and clinical variables. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions determined significant predictors of lung cancer screening uptake. Results: At the AMC, 67,355 were identified as eligible for LCS and 1,129 were screened. In bivariate analyses, there were several differences between those who were screened and those who were not screened. Screening status in the site at Alabama varied significantly by age (P<0.01), race (P<0.001), marital status (P<0.01), smoking status (P<0.01) health insurance (P<0.01), median income (P<0.01), urban status (P<0.01) and distance from UAB (P<0.01). Those who were screened were more likely to have lesser comorbidities (2.31 vs. 2.53; P<0.001). At the SNH, 11,011 individuals were identified as screen-eligible and 500 were screened. In the site at Georgia, screening status varied significantly by race (P<0.01), health insurance (P<0.01), and distance from site (P<0.01). At the AMC, the odds of being screened increased significantly if the individual was a current smoker compared to former smoker (OR=3.21; P<0.01). At the SNH, the odds of being screened for lung cancer increased significantly with every unit increase in co-morbidity count (OR = 1.12; P=0.01) Conclusion: The study provides evidence that LCS has not reached all subgroups and that additional targeted efforts are needed to increase lung cancer screening uptake. Furthermore disparity was noticed between adults living closer to screening institutions and those who lived farther.
Abstract A148: Perceptions of lung cancer screening among Native American patients: The Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS) study

Dorothy A. Rhoades,Cara Vaught,Ann Chou,Kathleen Dwyer,Mark P Doescher,Michele Gibson,Zsolt Nagykaldi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a148

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography is poor nationwide. The U.S. Native American (NA) population has a high prevalence of smoking and lung cancer mortality but low rates of LCS completion. Awareness and perceptions of LCS among NA men and women have rarely been studied. Methods: Using a community-engaged research approach in partnership with the Choctaw Nation Health Services Authority in Oklahoma, the "Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening" study developed and implemented a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a coordinated LCS program. In 2022, NA men and women eligible for LCS from six tribal health clinics completed a baseline survey prior to being referred for LCS. Surveys included demographic characteristics, smoking history, use of cancer preventive services, beliefs regarding personal risk of lung cancer, and perceptions toward LCS. Findings: Among 210 participants (57% women, 43% men), mean age was 63 years; 50% reported annual household income below $25,000, 83% completed high school or equivalent, with 40% having some college education. The median pack years of smoking was 46 years. The proportion of participants who currently smoke was 72%. Current cigarette users were slightly younger than former users (median age 61 vs 64 years, respectively) and similarly had lower maximum estimates of pack-years of use (median, 44 vs 52). Most (93%) had more than one primary care visit within the past 12 months, and 76% completed an annual physical or wellness visit in the past year. Overall, 73% had completed colonoscopy and, among women, 80% had a mammogram. Only 62% had heard about LCS. However, 74% agreed with the statement "It is likely that I will get lung cancer sometime in my lifetime". More than 90% of participants agreed that LCS would help with each of the following: early detection, chances of dying from lung cancer, reduce personal worry about lung cancer, reduce their family's worries, improve planning for the future and peace of mind. However, 44% worried that LCS would find "something wrong", 15% endorsed that they would rather not know if they had any lung problems, and 10% were afraid the scan would damage their lungs. About 20% worried about being a social outcast or being blamed for having smoked. Regarding potential barriers, 32% felt that cost would be a problem, 28% felt they did not have the time, and 17% that transportation would be a problem. Overall,14% reported bad experiences with healthcare or a provider, and 8% did not trust the healthcare system. Regarding LCS, 28% felt they did not know enough about the test, 11% felt they were too old to benefit from LCS, and 8% felt LCS was not worth the effort. Conclusions: Perceptions of the potential benefits from LCS were overall favorable in this sample of NA adults. However, up to 30% perceived significant barriers to LCS uptake. Greater awareness of LCS and mitigation of barriers to LCS would help to reduce the marked disparities in lung cancer mortality among NA patients. Citation Format: Dorothy A. Rhoades, Cara Vaught, Ann Chou, Kathleen Dwyer, Mark P Doescher, Michele Gibson, Zsolt Nagykaldi. Perceptions of lung cancer screening among Native American patients: The Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS) study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A148.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US

Maria A. Lopez-Olivo,Kristin G. Maki,Noah J. Choi,Richard M. Hoffman,Ya-Chen Tina Shih,Lisa M. Lowenstein,Rachel S. Hicklen,Robert J. Volk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25102

2020-11-16

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: To be effective in reducing deaths from lung cancer among high-risk current and former smokers, screening with low-dose computed tomography must be performed periodically.Objective: To examine lung cancer screening (LCS) adherence rates reported in the US, patient characteristics associated with adherence, and diagnostic testing rates after screening.Data Sources: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for articles published in the English language from January 1, 2011, through February 28, 2020.Study Selection: Two reviewers independently selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies from 95 potentially relevant studies reporting patient LCS adherence.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted when at least 2 studies reported on the same outcome. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was LCS adherence after a baseline screening. Secondary measures were the patient characteristics associated with adherence and the rate of diagnostic testing after screening.Results: Fifteen studies with a total of 16 863 individuals were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled LCS adherence rate across all follow-up periods (range, 12-36 months) was 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Regarding patient characteristics associated with adherence rates, current smokers were less likely to adhere to LCS than former smokers (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80); White patients were more likely to adhere to LCS than patients of races other than White (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.6); people 65 to 73 years of age were more likely to adhere to LCS than people 50 to 64 years of age (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9); and completion of 4 or more years of college was also associated with increased adherence compared with people not completing college (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1). Evidence was insufficient to evaluate diagnostic testing rates after abnormal screening scan results. The main source of variation was attributable to the eligibility criteria for screening used across studies.Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the pooled LCS adherence rate after a baseline screening was far lower than those observed in large randomized clinical trials of screening. Interventions to promote adherence to screening should prioritize current smokers and smokers from minority populations.

medicine, general & internal
Letter to the Editor in Response to "Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening in a Centralized Academic Program"

Julie Wu,Theodore Thomas,Hannah Tavalire,Fran Vecchio,Tassos Kariakides,Kristina Crothers,Michael J. Kelley,Drew Moghanaki,Scott Shofer,Fred Hendler,Larry Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2024.08.009

IF: 4.84

2024-09-03

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:Background Adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) protocols is critical for achieving mortality reductions. However, adherence rates, particularly for recommended annual screening among patients with low-risk findings, are often sub-optimal. We evaluated annual LCS adherence for patients with low-risk findings participating in a centralized screening program at a tertiary academic center. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of a centralized lung cancer screening program launched in July 2018. We performed electronic medical review of 337 patients who underwent low-dose CT (LDCT) screening before February 1, 2021 (to ensure ≥ 15 months follow up) and had a low-risk Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2. Captured data included patient characteristics (smoking history, Fagerstrom score, environmental exposures, lung cancer risk score), LDCT imaging dates, and Lung-RADS results. The primary outcome measure was adherence to annual screening. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with adherence. Results Overall, 337 patients had an initial Lung-RADS result of 1 (n = 189) or 2 (n = 148). Among this cohort, 139 (73.5%) of Lung-RADS 1 and 111 (75.0%) of Lung-RADS 2 patients completed the annual repeat LDCT within 15 months, respectively. The only patient characteristic associated with adherence was having Medicaid coverage; compared to having private insurance, Medicaid patients were less adherent (adjusted OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.15-0.92). No other patient characteristic was associated with adherence. Conclusion Our centralized screening program achieved a high initial annual adherence rate. Although LCS has first-dollar insurance coverage, other socioeconomic concerns may present barriers to annual screening for Medicaid recipients.

oncology
Assessment of compliance with USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines among resident primary care physicians in a university residency program.

Nerea Lopetegui-Lia,Syed Imran Jafri,Manish Kumar,Shashank Sama,James J. Vredenburgh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.27_suppl.43

IF: 45.3

2019-09-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:43 Background: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with a predicted 1.8 million deaths worldwide yearly. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for lung cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for all genres of age 55 to 80 with a 30 pack-year smoking history, current smokers or have quit within the past 15 years. Early detection has shown to reduce mortality. Only 4% of eligible patients in the US actually undergo lung cancer screening. Methods: A retrospective review of data was performed amongst the University of Connecticut Internal Medicine Residents acting as PCPs at a Clinic in Hartford, CT, USA. Results: 369 medical charts were reviewed. 115 patients (31.1%) met the USPSTF criteria for screening. 5.7% had an appropriately ordered LDCT scan. 2.71% had a LDCT completed and 2.98% had LDCT scheduled but pending or cancelled. 4 patients with smoking history who did not meet USPSTF criteria but had a LDCT due to clinical suspicion for lung cancer. Approximately 11% of patients had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema and asthma. 5 patients had a first degree relative with history of lung cancer. 6 patients had lung cancer, 3 of which had metastatic lung cancer at the time of diagnosis and are deceased. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening amongst resident PCP is insufficient. The results obtained were lower than the national average. This is likely due to newer trainees focusing less in prevention/screening and more on managing chronic medical conditions. Patients that attend resident PCP clinics in the US are typically of lower socio-economic status, less insurance coverage or uninsured and with a lower level of education. LDCT orders that were cancelled were likely because insurers declined it. Patients not realizing the importance of screening could also be contributing. It is unclear if lung disease or family history attributes a higher risk of developing lung cancer. In conclusion, educating resident PCPs and patients on lung cancer screening, as well as evaluating the reasons for cancelling LDCT could help ensure high quality care.

oncology

Treatment of facial injuries and deformities.

Lung Cancer Screening Uptake Under the Revised United States Preventive Service Task Force Guideline: Assessing Disparities

Prevalence of USPSTF Recommended Cancer Screenings Among Individuals Eligible For Lung Cancer Screening: An Analysis of the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LOW-DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY LUNG CANCER SCREENING IN THE UNITED STATES

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Use: A Population Health Perspective of One Community

Abstract B046: Factors influencing patient decision-making to complete Low Dose CT screening for lung cancer

State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States

Risk Factors for Lung Cancer in an Underrepresented Safety-Net Screening Cohort

Patient-provider Lung Cancer Screening Discussions: An analysis of a National Survey

Lung Cancer Yield Among Those Undergoing Lung Cancer Screening in Community-based Healthcare Systems

Barriers to Completing Low Dose Computed Tomography Scan for Lung Cancer Screening

Assessing disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility among high-risk individuals.

Abstract C113: Geographic variation in low-dose computed tomography scanning for lung cancer screening in the United States

Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke

Abstract A086: Disparities in lung cancer screening uptake across the United States

A National Survey of Pulmonologists' Views on Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer

Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Utilization at Two Health Systems in the Southeastern US

Abstract A148: Perceptions of lung cancer screening among Native American patients: The Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS) study

Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US

Letter to the Editor in Response to "Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening in a Centralized Academic Program"

Assessment of compliance with USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines among resident primary care physicians in a university residency program.