Evaluating Eligibility of US Black Women Under USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines

Alexandra L. Potter,Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang,Kirsten M. Woolpert,Thrusha Puttaraju,Kei Suzuki,Julie R. Palmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5790

IF: 33.006

2022-01-01

JAMA Oncology

Abstract:This quality improvement study evaluates lung cancer screening eligibility among US Black women under the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF guidelines.

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-024-01880-6

2024-05-08

Cancer Causes & Control

Abstract:In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised their 2013 recommendations for lung cancer screening eligibility by lowering the pack-year history from 30+ to 20+ pack-years and the recommended age from 55 to 50 years. Simulation studies suggest that Black persons and females will benefit most from these changes, but it is unclear how the revised USPSTF recommendations will impact geographic, health-related, and other sociodemographic characteristics of those eligible.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Evaluation of Population-Level Changes Associated With the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Community-Based Health Care Systems

Debra P Ritzwoller,Rafael Meza,Nikki M Carroll,Erica Blum-Barnett,Andrea N Burnett-Hartman,Robert T Greenlee,Stacey A Honda,Christine Neslund-Dudas,Katharine A Rendle,Anil Vachani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28176

2021-10-01

Abstract:Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated lung cancer screening recommendations in 2021, lowering the screening age from 55 to 50 years and smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years. These changes are expected to expand screening access to women and racial and ethnic minority groups. Objective: To estimate the population-level changes associated with the 2021 USPSTF expansion of lung cancer screening eligibility by sex, race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and comorbidities in 5 community-based health care systems. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study analyzed data of patients who received care from any of 5 community-based health care systems (which are members of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium, a collaboration that conducts research to better understand how to improve the cancer screening processes in community health care settings) from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2019. Individuals who had complete smoking history and were engaged with the health care system for 12 or more continuous months were included. Those who had never smoked or who had unknown smoking history were excluded. Exposures: Electronic health record-derived age, sex, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidities, and smoking history. Main outcomes and measures: Differences in the proportion of the newly eligible population by age, sex, race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis, and SES as well as lung cancer diagnoses under the 2013 recommendations vs the expected cases under the 2021 recommendations were evaluated using χ2 tests. Results: As of September 2019, there were 341 163 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who currently or previously smoked. Among these, 34 528 had electronic health record data that captured pack-year and quit-date information and were eligible for lung cancer screening according to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations. The 2021 USPSTF recommendations expanded screening eligibility to 18 533 individuals, representing a 53.7% increase. Compared with the 2013 cohort, the newly eligible 2021 population included 5833 individuals (31.5%) aged 50 to 54 years, a larger proportion of women (52.0% [n = 9631]), and more racial or ethnic minority groups. The relative increases in the proportion of newly eligible individuals were 60.6% for Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 67.4% for Hispanic; 69.7% for non-Hispanic Black; and 49.0% for non-Hispanic White groups. The relative increase for women was 13.8% higher than for men (61.2% vs 47.4%), and those with a lower comorbidity burden and lower SES had higher relative increases (eg, 68.7% for a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0; 61.1% for lowest SES). The 2021 recommendations were associated with an estimated 30% increase in incident lung cancer diagnoses compared with the 2013 recommendations. Conclusions and relevance: This cohort study suggests that, in diverse health care systems, adopting the 2021 USPSTF recommendations will increase the number of women, racial and ethnic minority groups, and individuals with lower SES who are eligible for lung cancer screening, thus helping to minimize the barriers to screening access for individuals with high risk for lung cancer.
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
Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

Alexandra L Potter,Nuo N Xu,Priyanka Senthil,Deepti Srinivasan,Hang Lee,G Scott Gazelle,Lydia Chelala,Wei Zheng,Florian J Fintelmann,Lecia V Sequist,Jessica Donington,Julie R Palmer,Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang,Alexandra L. Potter,Nuo N. Xu,G. Scott Gazelle,Florian J. Fintelmann,Lecia V. Sequist,Julie R. Palmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.23.01780

IF: 45.3

2024-03-29

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Pack-year smoking history is an imperfect and biased measure of cumulative tobacco exposure. The use of pack-year smoking history to determine lung cancer screening eligibility in the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline may unintentionally exclude many high-risk individuals, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups. It is unclear whether using a smoking duration cutoff instead of a smoking pack-year cutoff would improve the selection of individuals for screening. METHODS We analyzed 49,703 individuals with a smoking history from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and 22,126 individuals with a smoking history from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) to assess eligibility for screening under the USPSTF guideline versus a proposed guideline that replaces the ≥20-pack-year criterion with a ≥20-year smoking duration criterion. Results Under the USPSTF guideline, only 57.6% of Black patients with lung cancer in the SCCS would have qualified for screening, whereas a significantly higher percentage of White patients with lung cancer (74.0%) would have qualified ( P < .001). Under the proposed guideline, the percentage of Black and White patients with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening increased to 85.3% and 82.0%, respectively, eradicating the disparity in screening eligibility between the groups. In the BWHS, using a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff increased the percentage of Black women with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening from 42.5% to 63.8%. Conclusion Use of a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff greatly increases the proportion of patients with lung cancer who would qualify for screening and eliminates the racial disparity in screening eligibility between Black versus White individuals; smoking duration has the added benefit of being easier to calculate and being a more precise assessment of smoking exposure compared with pack-year smoking history.

oncology
Abstract A106: Are we there yet? Performance of risk-model based eligibility for lung cancer screening

Adoma A. Manful,Megan H. Murray,Sarah F. Mercaldo,Jeffrey D. Blume,Melinda C. Aldrich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a106

2023-01-11

Abstract:Introduction Lung cancer screening rates in the US remain low. Evidence suggests that risk-model based approaches may outperform current risk-factor based criteria in determining screening eligibility. We compared the USPSTF 2021 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria to three existing risk prediction models in a large and racially diverse population of smoking individuals. Methods We identified current and former smokers from a predominantly Black American study population recruited from community health centers across 12 southeastern US states from 2002 to 2009 and followed until 2019. Smoking behaviors were collected by in-person interviews or mailed-in questionnaires using three follow-up surveys. Incident lung cancers were ascertained from state cancer registries and National Death Index mortality records. Screening eligibility was based on USPSTF 2021 criteria or on pre-specified risk thresholds for each risk prediction model. Performance was assessed by sensitivity (the percentage of individuals who developed lung cancer that were deemed eligible for screening) and specificity (the percentage of those without lung cancer excluded from screening). Disparities by race and sex were evaluated in each subgroup. Results Of 52,911 ever smokers (64% Black, 31% White, 4% Other), a total of 1,705 developed lung cancer. More than a third of all persons with a history of smoking were screening eligible across all models: USPSTF 41%; Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) m2012 39%; Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT) 43%; Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT) 43%. All models exhibited nearly identical sensitivity (correctly identifying persons with lung cancer as eligible for screening) and specificity (excluding participants without lung cancer from screening): USPSTF Sensitivity: 0.61, Specificity: 0.59; PLCOm2012 Sensitivity: 0.62, Specificity: 0.60; LCDRAT Sensitivity: 0.62, Specificity: 0.58; LCDRAT Sensitivity: 0.60, Specificity: 0.58. Compared to Black persons with lung cancer, White persons with lung cancer were more likely to be eligible for screening across all models. Only 54-57% of Black persons with lung cancer were eligible for screening compared to 70-73% of White persons with lung cancer. The smallest racial disparities were observed using the USPSTF criteria (USPSTF sensitivity ratio for Whites to Blacks (SR [95% CI]): 1.27 [1.17-1.36]; PLCOm2012: 1.28 [1.17-1.39]; LCRAT: 1.29 [1.18-1.40]; LCDRAT: 1.33 [1.22-1.45]). There was no evidence of sex disparities greater than 1.1 RR in any of the models, with most estimated effects being less than 1+/- 0.05 RR. Conclusion In a racially diverse population of smoking individuals, we found similar performance of risk models vs USPFTF 2021 criteria for lung cancer screening. Racial disparities in screening eligibility persisted across all models, with the USPSTF 2021 criteria resulting in the smallest disparity. Given the poor performance of these models, there remains significant room for improvement. Citation Format: Adoma A. Manful, Megan H. Murray, Sarah F. Mercaldo, Jeffrey D. Blume, Melinda C. Aldrich. Are we there yet? Performance of risk-model based eligibility for lung cancer screening [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 A106.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Does the revised LDCT lung cancer screening guideline bridge the racial disparities gap: Results from the health and retirement study

Chien-Ching Li,Jason Manella,Safa El Kefi,Alicia K Matthews,Alicia K. Matthews

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2024.01.008

IF: 2.739

2024-01-01

Journal of the National Medical Association

Abstract:PURPOSE: This study examined racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility rates using 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and the revised 2021 guidelines.METHODS: The study utilized a retrospective and cross-sectional research design by analyzing data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). N = 2,823 respondents aged 50-80 who self-reported current smoking were included in the analyses. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the changed status of LDCT screening eligibility based on the revised 2021 guidelines by race/ethnicity after adjusting for respondent demographics.RESULTS: Our study found substantial increases in screening eligibility rates across racial and ethnic groups when comparing the original and revised guidelines. The largest increase was observed among Black people (174%), Hispanics (152%), those in the other category (118%), and Whites who smoke (80.8%). When comparing original screening guidelines to revised guidelines, Whites who smoke had the highest percentage of changes from "not eligible" to "eligible" (28.3%), followed by individuals in the "other" category (28.1%), Black people (23.2%) and Hispanics who smoke (18.3%) (p < 0.001). Binary logistic regression results further showed that Black people who smoke (OR = 0.71, p = 0.001), as well as Hispanics who smoke (OR=0.54, p < 0.001), were less likely to change from not eligible to eligible for screening compared to Whites who smoke after adopting the revised screening guidelines. Based on the absolute differences in screening eligibility rates between Whites and other racial/ethnic groups, the disparities may have widened under the new guidelines, particularly with larger absolute differences observed between Whites, Black people, and Hispanics.CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights racial/ethnic disparities in LDCT screening eligibility among people who currently smoke. While the revised USPSTF guidelines increased screening eligibility for racial and ethnic minorities, they did not eliminate these disparities and may have widened under the new guidelines. Targeted interventions and policies are necessary to address barriers faced by underrepresented populations and promote equitable access to lung cancer screening.

medicine, general & internal
Abstract A135: Social disparities in breast cancer screening: Up-to-date screening versus overscreening

Michelle L. Lui,Erica Lee Argov,Anita G. Karr,Rebecca D. Kehm,Parisa Tehranifar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a135

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Objective: The United States Preventative Services Task Force breast cancer (BC) screening guidelines in 2022 recommended biennial mammography for women aged 50-74 and cited insufficient evidence to assess mammography's benefits vs. harms in women aged ≥75. Other guidelines recommend screening cessation for women with <10 years of life expectancy. We examined how racial/ethnic, socioeconomic and geographic patterns observed in up-to-date screening (UTDS) for age-eligible women differ from women aged out of these guidelines or those with limited life expectancy (i.e. overscreening). Methods: We used nationally representative data from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for women aged 50+. Women screened in the past 1-2 years were considered UTDS in age group 50-74 and 'overscreened' if 75+ or with a high mortality risk of any age (≥8 score using modified Lee mortality index). We used multivariable logistic regressions to examine UTDS and overscreening in relation to self-identified race/ethnicity, metropolitan status, having a personal health care provider, highest education level, and marital status, stratified by age group and mortality risk. Results: 19.2% of 99601 women aged 50-74 did not have UTDS, while 73.7% of 34545 women 75+ and 60.2% of 22225 women with limited life expectancy continued to receive screening (overscreened). Among those aged 50-74, compared to non-Hispanic (NH) White, NH American Indian/Alaskan Native women (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.45–0.82) and NH women of unknown race (OR=0.61, 95% CI=0.45–0.82) were less likely to have UTDS while NH Black (OR=1.81, 95% CI=1.60–2.03) and Hispanic (OR=1.24, 95% CI=1.05–1.46) women were more likely to have UTDS. Lower socioeconomic resources were consistently associated with lower likelihood of UTDS (e.g. not having vs. having a personal health care provider (OR=0.22, 95% CI=0.19–0.26) or high school or less education vs. higher than high school (OR=0.73, 95% CI=0.67–0.79)). In ages 75+, compared to NH White, NH Black women were more likely to be overscreened (OR=1.32, 95% CI=1.06–1.65), and NH women of unknown race were less likely to be overscreened (OR=0.49, 95% CI=0.29–0.83). Low socioeconomic indicators were also associated with lower likelihood of overscreening (e.g. not having vs. having a personal health care provider (OR=0.48, 95% CI=0.36–0.63) or high school or less education vs. higher than high school (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.67–0.86)). Among women with a higher mortality risk, NH Black women (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.64–2.56) and Hispanic women (OR=1.61, 95% CI=1.09– 2.38) were more likely to be overscreened than NH White women. Conclusion: The findings reveal racial/ethnic, socioeconomic and geographic disparities in UTDS. NH Black and Hispanic women, who are more likely to have UTDS, may be at risk of overscreening as they age or if they have limited life expectancy. These patterns in UTDS and overscreening are critical considerations for implementing equitable BC screening guidelines and optimizing the benefits while minimizing the harms of screening in diverse populations. Citation Format: Michelle L. Lui, Erica Lee Argov, Anita G. Karr, Rebecca D. Kehm, Parisa Tehranifar. Social disparities in breast cancer screening: Up-to-date screening versus overscreening [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 A135.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Knowledge and beliefs about lung cancer screening among Black individuals at high risk: a qualitative approach

Abdi T Gudina,Charles Kamen,Lindsey J Mattick,Francisco Cartujano-Barrera,Michelle C Janelsins,Deborah Ossip,M Patricia Rivera,Kevin Fiscella,Ana-Paula Cupertino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-24-269

2024-08-31

Abstract:Background: Despite its efficacy in reducing lung cancer (LC)-specific mortality by 20%, screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in eligible groups remains low (5-16%). Black individuals are more commonly affected by LC than other racial/ethnic groups in the United States (U.S.) but less likely to undergo LC screening (LCS). Our study aimed to explore the knowledge and beliefs of Black individuals at high risk regarding LCS. Methods: Black individuals (n=17) who met the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) LCS eligibility criteria were recruited in upstate New York. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed to explore knowledge and beliefs that could influence the uptake of LCS. A qualitative thematic analysis method was used to identify and analyze themes within the data. Results: We identified principal themes about LC and LCS. Although most participants reported that smoking was the major risk factor for LC, some participants placed more emphasis on other factors as the major risk factors for LC and de-emphasized the role of smoking. Most participants were not aware that screening for LC existed. Several barriers and facilitators for LCS were identified. Conclusions: Awareness about LCS among Black individuals is low. Addressing barriers may help increase LCS rates among Black individuals, ultimately reducing their LC mortality. The findings from our study have important implications in designing more effective interventions involving community health workers and healthcare clinicians to increase LCS uptake among Black individuals at high risk.
Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Ernesto Sosa,Gail D’Souza,Aamna Akhtar,Melissa Sur,Kyra Love,Jeanette Duffels,Dan J. Raz,Jae Y. Kim,Virginia Sun,Loretta Erhunmwunsee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21671

2021-05-20

Abstract:<p>Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.</p>

oncology
Black patients referred to a lung cancer screening program experience lower rates of screening and longer time to follow-up

Michael Lake,Christine S Shusted,Hee-Soon Juon,Russell K McIntire,Charnita Zeigler-Johnson,Nathaniel R Evans,Gregory C Kane,Julie A Barta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06923-0

IF: 4.638

2020-06-16

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Background: Racial disparities are well-documented in preventive cancer care, but they have not been fully explored in the context of lung cancer screening. We sought to explore racial differences in lung cancer screening outcomes within a lung cancer screening program (LCSP) at our urban academic medical center including differences in baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results, time to follow-up, adherence, as well as return to annual screening after additional imaging, loss to follow-up, and cancer diagnoses in patients with positive baseline scans. Methods: A historical cohort study of patients referred to our LCSP was conducted to extract demographic and clinical characteristics, smoking history, and lung cancer screening outcomes. Results: After referral to the LCSP, blacks had significantly lower odds of receiving LDCT compared to whites, even while controlling for individual lung cancer risk factors and neighborhood-level factors. Blacks also demonstrated a trend toward delayed follow-up, decreased adherence, and loss to follow-up across all Lung-RADS categories. Conclusions: Overall, lung cancer screening annual adherence rates were low, regardless of race, highlighting the need for increased patient education and outreach. Furthermore, the disparities in race we identified encourage further research with the purpose of creating culturally competent and inclusive LCSPs.
Assessing Information Available for Health Professionals and Potential Participants on Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites: Cross-sectional Study

Rachael H Dodd,Chenyue Zhang,Ashleigh R Sharman,Julie Carlton,Ruijin Tang,Nicole M Rankin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/34264

2022-08-31

JMIR Cancer

Abstract:Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, adjusting the age of screening to 50 years (from 55 years) and reducing the number of pack-years used to estimate total firsthand cigarette smoke exposure to 20 (from 30). With many individuals using the internet to find health care information, it is important to understand what information is available for individuals contemplating lung cancer screening. Objective: This study aimed to assess the eligibility criteria and information available on lung cancer screening program websites for both health professionals and potential screening participants. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional analysis of 151 lung cancer screening program websites of academic (n=76) and community medical centers (n=75) in the United States with information for health professionals and potential screening participants was conducted in March 2021. Presentation of eligibility criteria for potential screening participants and presence of information available specific to health professionals about lung cancer screening were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included presentation of information about cost and smoking cessation, inclusion of an online risk assessment tool, mention of any clinical guidelines, and use of multimedia to present information. Results: Eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening was included in nearly all 151 websites (n=142, 94%), as well as age range (n=139, 92.1%) and smoking history (n=141, 93.4%). Age was only consistent with the latest recommendations in 14.5% (n=22) of websites, and no websites had updated smoking history. Half the websites (n=76, 50.3%) mentioned screening costs as related to the type of insurance held. A total of 23 (15.2%) websites featured an online assessment tool to determine eligibility. The same proportion (n=23, 15.2%) hosted information specifically for health professionals. In total, 44 (29.1%) websites referred to smoking cessation, and 46 (30.5%) websites used multimedia to present information, such as short videos or podcasts. Conclusions: Most websites of US lung cancer screening programs provide information about eligibility criteria, but this is not consistent and has not been updated across all websites following the latest USPSTF recommendations. Online resources require updating to present standardized information that is accessible for all. Trial Registration:
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.
Evaluation of the United States Preventative Services Task Force Screening Guidelines for Breast Cancer in a Hispanic Underserved Population

Vivian Ngo,Mona Degan,Eugene Ho,David Lanum,Fanglong Dong,Michael Neeki,Michael M. Neeki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8030

2020-05-08

Cureus

Abstract:There are several major breast cancer guidelines that have been promoted by various health organizations. Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC) Family Health Centers adopted the current guideline by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which recommends breast cancer screening with mammograms starting at age 50 for low-risk women. This study evaluates the effectiveness of this screening guideline in the selected Hispanic underserved population in San Bernardino, California (CA). This is a retrospective chart review study. Data were reviewed for any female with the confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer at the Family Health Centers between 2009 and 2018. The current study showed that 25% (40 of 160) of women diagnosed with breast cancer in this selected population were less than 50 years old. This finding suggests that high vigilance in breast cancer screening may be necessary in this population.
Lung Cancer Screening in Brazil Comparing the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF Guidelines

Isabel Cristina Martins Emmerick,Mônica Rodrigues Campos,Debora Castanheira,Jessica Muzy,Aline Marques,Luisa Arueira Chaves,Mario Jorge Sobreira da Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46994

2023-12-13

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This comparative effectiveness research study examines whether the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2021 recommendations are more effective than the USPSTF 2013 criteria in reducing sociodemographic disparities in lung cancer death risk in Brazil.

medicine, general & internal
Abstract A145: Race and sex disparities in lung cancer screening and evaluation of alternative identifiers in patients' electronic medical record to better identify lung cancer screening candidates

Darin Poei,Aubree Mades,Iris Yao,Nick Ahn,Ajay Prasad,Jennifer Tsui,Jacob S Thomas,Jorge J Nieva,Robert Hsu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a145

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends lung cancer screening with a low dose CT scan in patients who are 50 – 80 years old with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years. Yet, only 5.8 percent of eligible Americans were screened in 2022. We investigated demographic screening patterns and evaluated for alternative identifiers in patients' electronic medical record (EMR) to identify lung cancer screening candidates at a large and diverse cancer center in Los Angeles. Methods: We examined 607 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated at the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Care Center or Los Angeles General Medical Center from 2009-2023. EMR data included age of diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking history, and stage at diagnosis; for patients with unknown number of pack years (n=25) they counted as not qualified for screening. Identifiers investigated were International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), prescription of inhaled steroids, and documented lung cancer history. Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportion of qualified screeners among groups. Results: 35% (215/607) of patients would have qualified for lung cancer screening according to the USPSTF guidelines, including a greater proportion of males 52% (164/313) versus females 17% (51/293) (p<0.0001). In males, Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) 59% (55/93) had a greater proportion that would qualify compared to Hispanics 41% (31/75) (p=0.0295). In females, NHW 34% (30/89) had the highest proportion of qualifiers while Asians 6% (6/104) and Hispanics 9% (6/66) had the lowest proportion of qualifiers (p<0.0001). 65% (215/332) of smokers qualified for screening; males had a higher percentage who qualified for screening versus females (164/234, 70% vs. 51/98, 52%, p=0.0024). By race, NHW male smokers had the highest proportion of qualifiers 77% (55/71) while Hispanic women had the lowest proportion of qualifiers 50% (6/12). 27% (89/332) of patients were found to have an ICD-10 code for COPD, including 18% (21/117) had an ICD-10 code for COPD who did not qualify. 19% (63/332) smokers received a prescription for inhaled steroids, including 15% (18/117) of them who didn't qualify for screening. 12% had a family history of lung cancer (39/332), while 9% (10/117) of these patients didn't qualify for screening. Conclusion: There were significant race and sex screening disparities among known NSCLC patients including under 10% of Asian and Hispanic females. There were about 10-15% known lung cancer patients who would not have qualified for screening found to have an ICD-10 code for COPD, an inhaled steroids prescription, or documented family history. These alternative identifiers may serve as identifiers for lung cancer screening candidates in the EMR to help address race and sex disparities in screening. Future directions should include simulation of these identifiers in larger patient datasets. Citation Format: Darin Poei, Aubree Mades, Iris Yao, Nick Ahn, Ajay Prasad, Jennifer Tsui, Jacob S Thomas, Jorge J Nieva, Robert Hsu. Race and sex disparities in lung cancer screening and evaluation of alternative identifiers in patients' electronic medical record to better identify lung cancer screening candidates [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 A145.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Abstract C121: Follow-up of moderate and severe coronary artery calcifications identified on lung cancer screening CT scans: An opportunity to improve cardiac health outcomes in Black men and women

Christine Neslund-Dudas,Katie R. Zarins,Punith Shetty,Andrea E. Cassidy-Bushrow,Nada Al-Antary,Katie A. Latack,Vritti Gupta,Michael Simoff,Riley Draper,Samuel Wilcox,Kendra Worden,Kathy LaRaia,Kelly Hirko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp23-c121

2023-12-01

Abstract:Abstract Background: The USPSTF currently recommends lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT (LDCT) in those 50 to 80 years of age with 20+ pack-years of smoking who are currently smoking or quit smoking within the last 15 years. LCS LDCT often detects non-cancer related incidental findings, most commonly coronary artery calcifications (CAC). CAC is a measure of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis, is higher in those with tobacco use, and may require additional clinical assessment after LCS. In the National Lung Screening Trial, reductions in all-cause mortality were stronger among Black than White participants undergoing LDCT. It was hypothesized that this may have been due to follow-up and treatment of incidental findings such as CAC during the trial. Methods: In this on-going observational study, we are evaluating clinical follow-up of moderate or severe CAC within 12 months of LCS among individuals undergoing baseline LCS at two Michigan health systems, one urban and one rural. We report here our initial findings for individuals with a baseline LCS LDCT at Henry Ford Health in 2018. Pearson Chi Square and McNemar’s tests were used to determine differences between race and sex groups and in change in statin use and cardiology visits (yes/no) pre- to post-screening. Results: Of 1,630 individuals (18% Black) with a baseline LDCT in 2018, moderate or severe CAC was documented in 154 (9.4%). Moderate or severe CAC prevalence was significantly higher among Black versus Non-Black ( 17.7 % vs 7.1%; p= <0.001) individuals and men versus women ( 11.7% vs 7.1%; p=0.002 ). Pre- to post-LCS increases in statin use (68.2% vs. 76.0%; p=0.02) and cardiology visits (25.9% vs. 50.7%; p<0.01) were observed, overall. Statin use did not differ by race, sex, or race-sex group in the pre- or post- periods. Cardiology visits were less common among Blacks (18.2% vs. 28.9%; p=0.14) and women ( 18.2% vs. 28.9%; p= 0.14) in the pre-LCS period with Black women (8.3%) being the least likely to have a cardiology visit before LCS. Post-LCS, the cardiology gap between Black and Non-Black individuals (43.6% vs. 55.6%: p=0.16) narrowed and was eliminated between women and men (53.6 % vs. 50%; p=0.67). This was due in part to a substantial uptick of cardiology visits post-LCS in Black females. However, Black men, were significantly less likely than Non-Black men (32.3 % vs 56.7% ; p=0.024 ) and Black women (32.2% vs. 62.5%; p=0.024) to have a cardiology visit post-LCS . Conclusions: Our study is on-going; however, preliminary results suggest that in addition to reducing lung cancer mortality, LCS provides an opportunity for CAC detection and its related management. LCS, if implemented equitably with comprehensive follow-up of incidental findings, may help to close gaps in cardiac care for Black individuals and women. Further investigation is needed to assess whether appropriate follow-up of CAC decreases cardiovascular risks for those undergoing screening. Citation Format: Christine Neslund-Dudas, Katie R. Zarins, Punith Shetty, Andrea E. Cassidy-Bushrow, Nada Al-Antary, Katie A. Latack, Vritti Gupta, Michael Simoff, Riley Draper, Samuel Wilcox, Kendra Worden, Kathy LaRaia, Kelly Hirko. Follow-up of moderate and severe coronary artery calcifications identified on lung cancer screening CT scans: An opportunity to improve cardiac health outcomes in Black men and women [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 C121.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Abstract A125: A nationwide initiative to expand access to lung cancer screening: Results and impact of the Color/American Cancer Society Lung Screening Access Program

Deanna Brockman,Jennifer Fung,Ashly Emig,Gabrielle Hands,Wendy McKennon,Jennifer Cho,Robert Smith,William Dahut,Alicia Zhou,Keegan Duchicela

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a125

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Lung cancer is a leading health challenge in the United States – it is the third most common cancer and disproportionately impacts people of color. Early detection of lung cancer is possible through routine screenings using low-dose lung CT scans. Despite the efficacy of screening, 80-85% of people eligible for screening are not up-to-date. The underutilization of regular screening has often been attributed to gaps in primary care and insufficient support following an abnormal result. In an effort to improve access, Color and the American Cancer Society (ACS), launched a nationwide initiative to make lung cancer screening readily accessible and free across all 50 states based on ACS guidelines. The program simplifies the screening process by managing all logistical steps from physician orders to finding and booking appointments at local clinics to assisting with next steps if abnormalities are detected.Since the program launched in November 2023, 74 people completed the online health risk assessment. On average participants were 54 years of age (range: 18-81 years), 64% (n=41) female, and 65% (n=48) White. 28% (n=19) respondents currently smoked, 50% (n=34) had a former history of smoking, and average smoking history was 23.0 pack years (range: 0.1 - 66 pack years). While the program primarily supports individuals who meet ACS lung screening guidelines, all participants can speak with a clinician about screening.Of those who completed the health risk assessment, 45.6% (n=31) met ACS eligibility criteria for lung screening. Eligible participants were on average 62 years of age (range: 51 - 77 years), 74% (n=23) were female, and 87% (n=27) were White. Eligible participants resided in 21 states, with Georgia and Ohio having the highest number of eligible individuals.To date, 9 people have completed a lung CT and 3 are in progress of scheduling. On average, appointments were scheduled within 25 days from the initial referral submission (range: 8-55 days) and all appointments were within 17 miles from the individual's preferred location (average: 6.8 miles, range: 0.5-17 miles).3 participants had a change in their lung screening plan based on their result, with 2 participants having Lung-RADS 3 category nodules (follow-up in 6 months) and 1 having Lung-RADS 4A nodules (follow-up in 6 months). Other findings included an ascending aortic aneurysm (4.2 cm), a hiatal hernia, an indeterminate adrenal nodule, and mild coronary artery calcification, some of which required additional follow-up care with a PCP or cardiologist within 3-12 months. No participants were recommended to have immediate diagnostic testing for lung cancer based on their results. The Color/ACS Lung Screening Access Program demonstrates the impact that a virtual lung cancer screening program has on closing screening gaps. It underscores the critical role of supporting patients not only in undergoing cancer screening, but also in navigating the complexities of follow-up care, thereby enhancing the overall efficacy of lung cancer prevention and early detection strategies. Citation Format: Deanna Brockman, Jennifer Fung, Ashly Emig, Gabrielle Hands, Wendy McKennon, Jennifer Cho, Robert Smith, William Dahut, Alicia Zhou, Keegan Duchicela. A nationwide initiative to expand access to lung cancer screening: Results and impact of the Color/American Cancer Society Lung Screening Access Program [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 A125.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
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
The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening

Lauren E Kearney,Patrick Belancourt,Hormuzd A Katki,Nichole T Tanner,Renda Soylemez Wiener,Hilary A Robbins,Rebecca Landy,Tanner J Caverly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-3250

Abstract:Background: The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people. Objective: To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people. Design: Model-based projections. Setting: United States. Participants: People from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014-2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria. Measurements: Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. "High-benefit" was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening. Results: The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; P < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; P < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [P < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [P = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [P = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities. Limitation: The results were based on model projections. Conclusion: These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups. Primary funding source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.
Abstract A139: Examining the association of cardiovascular health attainment with cancer screening adherence in community-dwelling Black women

Timiya S. Nolan,Songzhu Zhao,Amaris Williams,Guy Brock,Stephanie S. Ogonuwe,Faith Metlock,Alicia McKoy,Loletia Davis,Aldenise P. Ewing,Karen Patricia Williams,Electra D. Paskett,Joshua J. Joseph

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp23-a139

2023-12-02

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Purpose of the study Cancer and cardiovascular disease are leading causes of death in the United States and share modifiable risk factors. Increasing ideal cardiovascular health indicated by the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 metrics (LS7: blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, body mass index, physical activity, and smoking) and cancer screening adherence are both associated with reducing cancer-related mortality. However, there have been no studies to identify associations between LS7 and cancer screening adherence. It is well documented that people adopting positive health behaviors like physical activity and healthy eating have higher cancer screening adherence. Unfortunately, disparities by race exist in both engagement in health behaviors (key metrics of LS7) and cancer screening. Cancer screening disparities between Black and White women have narrowed over time; however, there are disparities in LS7 attainment by race. Here, we examined the association of LS7 attainment with screen detectable cancer (breast, cervical, and colorectal) adherence in Black women. Methods The Partnering in Negating Statistics (P.I.N.S.) for Black Women Initiative promotes health and wellness among Black women. Its community wellness events provide health education, screenings (e.g., breast, cervical, and cardiovascular health), and research participation opportunities. At P.I.N.S. events, LS7 metrics (score range 0-14) and self-reported cancer screening history were collected. The associations of LS7 with cancer screening adherence were examined using multinomial logistic regression adjusting for age, income, and education. Results In 2021 and 2022, 296 Black women participated in cardiovascular health screenings. They had a mean age of 50.1 years (SD 14.1); 66% employed; 88% insured; 69% with educational attainment ≥ college. The 166 participants with complete LS7 data had intermediate cardiovascular health with a median score of 8 [7-10]. In age adjusted models, a 1-unit increase in LS7 attainment was associated with a 45% higher odds of breast cancer screening adherence (OR 1.45, 95%CI: 1.03, 2.05; n=93), which was similar with full adjustment (OR 1.50, 95% CI: 0.95, 2.39; n=91). There was no association of LS7 attainment with cervical (OR 1.09, p=0.40; n=124) or colorectal cancer (OR 1.05, p=0.70; n=84) screening adherence. Conclusions In community-dwelling Black women, increasing LS7 attainment may increase odds of breast cancer screening adherence. Research with a larger sample is needed. Citation Format: Timiya S. Nolan, Songzhu Zhao, Amaris Williams, Guy Brock, Stephanie S. Ogonuwe, Faith Metlock, Alicia McKoy, Loletia Davis, Aldenise P. Ewing, Karen Patricia Williams, Electra D. Paskett, Joshua J. Joseph. Examining the association of cardiovascular health attainment with cancer screening adherence in community-dwelling Black women [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) nr A139.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health

Evaluating Eligibility of US Black Women Under USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines

Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations

Evaluation of Population-Level Changes Associated With the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Community-Based Health Care Systems

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

Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

Abstract A106: Are we there yet? Performance of risk-model based eligibility for lung cancer screening

Does the revised LDCT lung cancer screening guideline bridge the racial disparities gap: Results from the health and retirement study

Abstract A135: Social disparities in breast cancer screening: Up-to-date screening versus overscreening

Knowledge and beliefs about lung cancer screening among Black individuals at high risk: a qualitative approach

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Black patients referred to a lung cancer screening program experience lower rates of screening and longer time to follow-up

Assessing Information Available for Health Professionals and Potential Participants on Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites: Cross-sectional Study

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

Evaluation of the United States Preventative Services Task Force Screening Guidelines for Breast Cancer in a Hispanic Underserved Population

Lung Cancer Screening in Brazil Comparing the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF Guidelines

Abstract A145: Race and sex disparities in lung cancer screening and evaluation of alternative identifiers in patients' electronic medical record to better identify lung cancer screening candidates

Abstract C121: Follow-up of moderate and severe coronary artery calcifications identified on lung cancer screening CT scans: An opportunity to improve cardiac health outcomes in Black men and women

Abstract A125: A nationwide initiative to expand access to lung cancer screening: Results and impact of the Color/American Cancer Society Lung Screening Access Program

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

The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening

Abstract A139: Examining the association of cardiovascular health attainment with cancer screening adherence in community-dwelling Black women