Lung Cancer Screening Communication in the US, 2022

Kalyani Sonawane,Ashvita Garg,Benjamin A. Toll,Ashish A. Deshmukh,Gerard A. Silvestri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42811

2024-11-05

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study examines lung cancer screening communication between US clinicians and patients by smoking status and demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening in the US, 2022

Louise M. Henderson,I-Hsuan Su,M. Patricia Rivera,Joyce Pak,Xiaomeng Chen,Daniel S. Reuland,Jennifer L. Lund

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3190

2024-03-23

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study compares lung cancer screening prevalence in 2022 among individuals eligible by 2021 vs 2013 criteria by sociodemographics and state.

medicine, general & internal
Exploring Lung Cancer Screening Discussions on Twitter.

Yunpeng Zhao,Jinhai Huo,Mattia Prosperi,Yi Guo,Yongqiu Li,Jiang Bian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/shti190760

2019-01-01

Abstract:Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer deaths by 20% compared to chest x-rays. Nevertheless, the uptake of LDCT is low for high-risk smokers. In this study we used Twitter data to understand laypeople's emotions towards LCS, find topics on LCS-related tweets, and assess the impact of promotional information on laypeople's discussions.
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:
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
Provider-Patient Discussions About Smoking and the Impact of Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines: NHIS 2011-2015.

Jinhai Huo,Tong Han Chung,Bumyang Kim,Ashish A Deshmukh,Ramzi G Salloum,Jiang Bian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05111-6

IF: 5.7

2019-01-01

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines for treating tobacco use and lung cancer screening guidelines recommend smoking cessation counseling to current smokers by health care professionals. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to determine the contemporary patterns of current smokers' discussions about smoking with their health care professionals in the USA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted an observational study of 30,132 current smokers (weighted sample 40,126,006) for the years 2011 to 2015 using data from the National Health Interview Survey. MAIN MEASURES:Our main outcome was the proportion of current smokers who had discussions about smoking with their health care professionals. We used the Cochran-Armitage trend test to evaluate the temporal trends in current smokers' discussions about smoking, and used a multivariable logistic model to determine the predictors of discussions about smoking, controlling for smokers' demographics, health status, and receipts of lung cancer screening. KEY RESULTS:Our study found the proportion of current smokers who had discussions about smoking with their health care professionals increased from 51.3% in 2011 to 55.4% in 2015 (P-trend < 0.0001). However, about 15% of current smokers who underwent lung cancer screening did not have or could not recall discussions about smoking with their health care professionals. In multivariable analyses and sensitivity analysis, the predictors of discussions about smoking were being a heavy smoker, receipt of lung cancer screening, being non-Hispanic white, having a physician office visit in the past year, being diagnosed with respiratory conditions, having fair or poor health, and having insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS:The results demonstrated a steady but slow increase in current smokers' discussions about smoking with their health care professionals in recent years, especially among heavy smokers. More than 40% of current smokers did not have or could not recall any discussions about smoking with their health care professionals.
Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors

Jennifer Richmond,Jessica R. Fernandez,Kemberlee Bonnet,Ashley Sellers,David G. Schlundt,Allana T. Forde,Consuelo H. Wilkins,Melinda C. Aldrich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12880

2024-06-01

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This qualitative study investigates environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors in lung cancer screening decisions among US patients meeting screening eligibility criteria.

medicine, general & internal
Low Rates of Patient-Reported Physician–Patient Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening among Current Smokers: Data from Health Information National Trends Survey

Jinhai Huo,Young-Rock Hong,Jiang Bian,Yi Guo,Diana J. Wilkie,Arch G. Mainous

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-0629

2019-04-25

Abstract:Background:Many professional societies published guidelines recommending lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scan. We examined the temporal trends in patient-reported physician–patient discussions about lung cancer screening, and aimed to determine the association of discussions of lung cancer screening with the smokers’ attempt to quit and intent to quit.Methods:Data from years 2012, 2014, and 2017 of the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were combined to create a multiple-year analytic dataset. We calculated the association between samples’ characteristics and the presence of discussion about lung cancer screening. Using logistic regression, we estimated the probability of smokers’ attempt to quit and intent to quit.Results:Among 9,443 subjects, the crude estimated rates of physician–patient discussion decreased from 6.7% in 2012, to 4.2% in 2014 and 4.3% in 2017. Across the age and smoking status groups, the current smokers ages 55 to 74 in 2012 (26.8%), and current smokers older than 74 years in 2014 (23.5%) and 2017 (22.1%) had the highest rates of discussion. The physician–patient discussion about lung cancer screening was not associated with patients’ intent to quit or attempt to quit in a multivariable analysis.Conclusions: Efforts are needed to improve the physician–patient discussion about lung cancer screening among individuals across a spectrum of lung cancer risk.Impact:Developing communication strategies for promoting beneficial lung cancer screening among lung cancer screening-eligible smokers and strategies for improving the quality of discussion on lung cancer screening integrating smoking cessation are needed to reduce the burden of lung cancer.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Current Smokers’ Preferences for Receiving Cessation Information in a Lung Cancer Screening Setting

Lisa Carter-Harris,Rhonda Schwindt,Giorgos Bakoyannis,DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa,Susan M. Rawl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1222-7

2017-04-12

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify current smokers’ communication format preferences for receiving smoking cessation information in a lung cancer screening setting. A cross-sectional correlational design using survey methodology with 159 screening-eligible current smokers was the method used. Data was dichotomized (digital versus traditional preference) and analyzed using Pearson’s chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression. Race was a statistically significant predictor with White participants having four times greater odds of reporting preference for a digital format for receiving smoking cessation information such as social media and/or supportive text messages (OR: 4.06; p = 0.004). Lung cancer screening is a new venue where current long-term smokers can be offered information about smoking cessation while they are engaging in a health-promoting behavior and potentially more likely to contemplate quitting. It is important to consider the communication format preference of current smokers to support cessation uptake. This study is the first to examine communication format preference of current smokers in the context of the lung cancer screening venue. Key differences noted by race support the need for further research examining multiple formats of communication with efforts to maximize options in the cancer screening setting.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
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.
Patient-Provider Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Equitable Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening.

Young-Rock Hong,Meghann Wheeler,Ruixuan Wang,Shama Karanth,Hyung-Suk Yoon,Rafael Meza,Frederick Kaye,Jiang Bian,Jihyoun Jeon,Michael K. Gould,Dejana Braithwaite

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2023.08.013

IF: 4.84

2024-01-01

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:Background Physician-patient discussions regarding lung cancer screening (LCS) are uncommon and its racial and ethnic disparities are under-investigated. We examined the racial and ethnic disparities in the trends and frequency of LCS discussion among the LCS-eligible United States (US) population. Methods We analyzed data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2014 to 2020. LCS-eligible individuals were defined as adults aged 55 to 80 years old who have a current or former smoking history. We estimated the trends and frequency of LCS discussions and adjusted the probability of having an LCS discussion by racial and ethnic groups. Results Among 2136 LCS-eligible participants (representing 22.7 million US adults), 12.9% (95% CI, 10.9%-15%) reported discussing LCS with their providers in the past year. The frequency of LCS discussion was lowest among non-Hispanic White participants (12.3%, 95% CI, 9.9%-14.7%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups (14.1% in Hispanic to 15.3% in non-Hispanic Black). A significant increase over time was only observed among non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1% in 2014 to 22.1% in 2020; P = .05) and non-Hispanic Whites (8.5% in 2014 to 14% in 2020; P = .02). In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black participants (14.6%, 95% CI, 12.3%-16.7%) had a significantly higher probability of LCS discussion than non-Hispanic Whites (12.1%, 95% CI, 11.4%-12.7%). Conclusion Patient-provider LCS discussion was uncommon in the LCS-eligible US population. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have LCS discussions than other racial and ethnic groups. There is a need for more research to clarify the discordance between LCS discussions and the actual screening uptake in this population.
Perceptions and Interest in Lung Cancer Screening by Smoking Status: A Cross-Sectional Study of HINTS 6 (2022)

Wenxue Lin,Ibrahim Alasqah,Saad A. Alotaibi,Nada Alqarawi,Sulaiman Sulmi Almutairi,Ariana Saraiva,António Raposo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12191952

2024-10-01

Health Care

Abstract:Background: Lung cancer screening guidelines prioritize individuals with a history of smoking due to their higher risk of the disease. Methods: Our study examines the awareness and interest in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among different smoking statuses using data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 6 (2022). We analyzed data from HINTS 6, including 3915 participants on smoking status, LDCT screening, and telehealth use. Participants were categorized as current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers. Results: Current smokers had the highest likelihood of being recommended for LDCT screening (OR: 7.1, aOR: 10.4) compared with non-smokers. Former smokers also had increased odds of screening recommendations (OR: 3.1, aOR: 3.4) than non-smokers. Despite higher screening recommendations, current smokers exhibited significantly lower interest in cancer screening (interest rating score: 2.1) compared with non-smokers (interest rating score: 2.4) and former smokers (interest rating score: 2.5). Current smokers rated their telehealth care experiences more positively in terms of care quality compared with non-smokers. Conclusions: Our findings underscore a gap in cancer screening interest among current smokers despite their higher likelihood of being recommended for LDCT screening. The favorable perception of telehealth among current smokers provides an opportunity to enhance engagement and promote LDCT scan through telehealth care.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Healthcare Access, Utilization, and Preventive Health Behaviors by Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening

Eric A. Miller,Paul F. Pinsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01634-y

2019-10-26

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended low-dose computed tomography screening for smokers at high risk of lung cancer; however, use remains low. Efforts to promote lung cancer screening need to consider how receptive this population is to preventive healthcare and cancer screening. In addition, because of demonstrated heterogeneity in behaviors by smoking status, interventions may need to differ among eligible high-risk subgroups. To assess the engagement of high-risk smokers in other preventive healthcare behaviors, we examined healthcare use, including non-lung cancer screening, and healthcare provider discussions regarding screening by eligibility for lung cancer screening. We used the 2015 National Health Interview Survey to assess smoking history, healthcare use, cancer screening, vaccinations, and healthcare provider discussions regarding non-lung cancer screening. We calculated weighted prevalence estimates and prevalence ratios comparing eligible and ineligible current and former smokers to never smokers. Eligible current and former smokers had significantly different healthcare utilization and screening concordance compared to never smokers and to each other. Compared to never smokers, eligible current smokers were significantly less likely to be concordant with breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening while eligible former smokers were only less likely to be concordant with breast cancer screening. Eligible current smokers were less likely to report physician discussions about non-lung screening tests. Provider discussions about screening and engagement in preventive healthcare differed among current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening. Intervention efforts to increase lung cancer screening levels will likely need to differ as well.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
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: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.

oncology
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
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.
Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting

Martin C. Tammemägi,Gail E. Darling,Heidi Schmidt,Meghan J. Walker,Deanna Langer,Yvonne W. Leung,Kathy Nguyen,Beth Miller,Diego Llovet,William K. Evans,Daniel N. Buchanan,Gabriela Espino-Hernandez,Usman Aslam,Amanda Sheppard,Aisha Lofters,Micheal McInnis,Julian Dobranowski,Steven Habbous,Christian Finley,Marianne Luettschwager,Erin Cameron,Caroline Bravo,Anna Banaszewska,Katherin Creighton-Taylor,Brenda Fernandes,Julia Gao,Alex Lee,Van Lee,Bogdan Pylypenko,Monica Yu,Erin Svara,Shivali Kaushal,Lynda MacNiven,Caitlin McGarry,Lauren Della Mora,Liz Koen,Jessica Moffatt,Michelle Rey,Marta Yurcan,Laurie Bourne,Gillian Bromfield,Melissa Coulson,Rebecca Truscott,Linda Rabeneck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02904-z

IF: 82.9

2024-04-20

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Lung Cancer Screening: Early Detection Decreases Mortality

Brian Nam,Danny Hamm,Nora Katurakes,Charles Mulligan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32481/djph.2024.08.07

2024-08-28

Abstract:Lung cancer remains the number one cancer related mortality in the United States . While it is the third most diagnosed cancer, it is often found at an advanced stage. Survival rates for stage I lung cancer are above 70% while survival rates for stage IV lung cancer are less than 10% at five years. Methods to detect lung cancer at an earlier stage when it can be more effectively treated have been investigated for many years. These included regular chest x-rays (CXRs) and sputum samples. Unfortunately, these testing modalities did not show any benefit. This changed in 2011 when data from the National Lung Screening Trial were published. This landmark trial showed conclusively that a low-radiation dose chest computed tomography scan (LDCT) performed annually in patients with a heavy smoking history reduced lung cancer related mortality by 20%. These results have led to a nationwide effort to increase lung cancer screening. While the number of eligible patients that are being screened on a national level remains modest, significant efforts are being made at the state and local levels to increase awareness and to improve screening. These efforts have also targeted underserved areas and are focused on reducing disparities in access.
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
Contemporary Concise Review 2021: Pulmonary nodules from detection to intervention

Emily Stone,Tracy L Leong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14296

IF: 6.9

Respirology

Abstract:The US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) has updated screening criteria by expanding age range and reducing smoking history required for eligibility; the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) data have shown that PLCOM2012 performs better for eligibility than USPSTF criteria. Screening adherence is low (4%-6% of potential eligible candidates in the United States) and depends upon multiple system and patient/candidate-related factors. Smoking cessation in lung cancer improves survival (past prospective trial data, updated meta-analysis data); smoking cessation is an essential component of lung cancer screening. Circulating biomarkers are emerging to optimize screening and early diagnosis. COVID-19 continues to affect lung cancer treatment and screening through delays and disruptions; specific operational challenges need to be met. Over 70% of suspected malignant lesions develop in the periphery of the lungs. Bronchoscopic navigational techniques have been steadily improving to allow greater accuracy with target lesion approximation and therefore diagnostic yield. Fibre-based imaging techniques provide real-time microscopic tumour visualization, with potential diagnostic benefits. With significant advances in peripheral lung cancer localization, bronchoscopically delivered ablative therapies are an emerging field in limited stage primary and oligometastatic disease. In advanced stage lung cancer, small-volume samples acquired through bronchoscopic techniques yield material of sufficient quantity and quality to support clinically relevant biomarker assessment.
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

Lung Cancer Screening Communication in the US, 2022

Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening in the US, 2022

Exploring Lung Cancer Screening Discussions on Twitter.

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

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

Provider-Patient Discussions About Smoking and the Impact of Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines: NHIS 2011-2015.

Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors

Low Rates of Patient-Reported Physician–Patient Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening among Current Smokers: Data from Health Information National Trends Survey

Current Smokers’ Preferences for Receiving Cessation Information in a Lung Cancer Screening Setting

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

Patient-Provider Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Equitable Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening.

Perceptions and Interest in Lung Cancer Screening by Smoking Status: A Cross-Sectional Study of HINTS 6 (2022)

Healthcare Access, Utilization, and Preventive Health Behaviors by Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening

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

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

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

Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting

Lung Cancer Screening: Early Detection Decreases Mortality

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

Contemporary Concise Review 2021: Pulmonary nodules from detection to intervention

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