Search

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in both sexes. Large, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography screening reduces mortality from lung cancer, as opposed to chest X-ray or no screening, when participants adhere to follow-up recommendations. However, low adherence rates in post-trial clinical lung cancer screening (LCS) programs have been reported across the United States (US). Low adherence to LCS in real-world clinical practice diminishes the mortality benefit of annual screening derived from clinical trials. Thus far, limited studies have examined factors affecting the patient’s decision (not) to adhere to screening guidelines. This dissertation examines the factors that may predict patient non-adherence to LCS recommendations. First, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 studies published between 2014 and 2020 that mentioned adherence to Lung-RADS recommendations, identifying factors contributing to adherence rates. Second, using the Carter-Harris conceptual model, which enumerates psychosocial variables (e.g., smoking stigma, cancer fear, cancer fatalism) related to LCS participation and adherence, we examined these variables’ availability and completeness in our medical records. Next, using a subset of variables where data were consistently available, we identified factors of non-adherence over multiple screening time points using logistic regression and mixed effects models. Lastly, we used statistical and machine learning-based methods to examine how well we could predict patient non-adherence using longitudinal data across three screening time points. This dissertation advances our understanding of factors contributing to patient non-adherence to LCS recommendations. It provides a basis for identifying patient groups that could benefit from individualized interventions to improve LCS adherence.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Nevertheless, patient adherence to recommended intervals varies, potentially diminishing benefit from screening. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and major radiology and oncology conference archives between April 28, 2014, and December 17, 2020. Eligible studies mentioned patient adherence to the recommendations of Lung-RADS. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189326). We identified 24 eligible studies for qualitative summary, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled adherence rate was 57% (95% confidence interval: 46%-69%) for defined adherence (e.g., an annual incidence screen was performed within 15 mo) among 6689 patients and 65% (95% confidence interval: 55%-75%) for anytime adherence among 5085 patients. Large heterogeneity in adherence rates between studies was observed (I2 = 99% for defined adherence, I2 = 98% for anytime adherence). Heterogeneous adherence rates were associated with Lung-RADS scores, with significantly higher adherence rates among Lung-RADS 3 to 4 than Lung-RADS 1 to 2 (p < 0.05). Patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical LCS programs in the United States, especially among patients with results of Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2. To improve adherence rates, future research may focus on implementing tailored interventions after identifying barriers to LCS. We also propose a minimum standardized set of data elements for future pooled analyses of LCS adherence on the basis of our findings.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Nevertheless, patient adherence to recommended intervals varies, potentially diminishing benefit from screening. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and major radiology and oncology conference archives between April 28, 2014, and December 17, 2020. Eligible studies mentioned patient adherence to the recommendations of Lung-RADS. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189326). We identified 24 eligible studies for qualitative summary, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled adherence rate was 57% (95% confidence interval: 46%-69%) for defined adherence (e.g., an annual incidence screen was performed within 15 mo) among 6689 patients and 65% (95% confidence interval: 55%-75%) for anytime adherence among 5085 patients. Large heterogeneity in adherence rates between studies was observed (I2 = 99% for defined adherence, I2 = 98% for anytime adherence). Heterogeneous adherence rates were associated with Lung-RADS scores, with significantly higher adherence rates among Lung-RADS 3 to 4 than Lung-RADS 1 to 2 (p < 0.05). Patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical LCS programs in the United States, especially among patients with results of Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2. To improve adherence rates, future research may focus on implementing tailored interventions after identifying barriers to LCS. We also propose a minimum standardized set of data elements for future pooled analyses of LCS adherence on the basis of our findings.

We present an interpretable end-to-end computer-aided detection and diagnosis tool for pulmonary nodules on computed tomography (CT) using deep learning-based methods. The proposed network consists of a nodule detector and a nodule malignancy classifier. We used RetinaNet to train a nodule detector using 7,607 slices containing 4,234 nodule annotations and validated it using 2,323 slices containing 1,454 nodule annotations drawn from the LIDC-IDRI dataset. The average precision for the nodule class in the validation set reached 0.24 at an intersection over union (IoU) of 0.5. The trained nodule detector was externally validated using a UCLA dataset. We then used a hierarchical semantic convolutional neural network (HSCNN) to classify whether a nodule was benign or malignant and generate semantic (radiologist-interpretable) features (e.g., mean diameter, consistency, margin), training the model on 149 cases with diagnostic CTs collected from the same UCLA dataset. A total of 149 nodule-centered patches from the UCLA dataset were used to train the HSCNN. Using 5-fold cross validation and data augmentation, the mean AUC and mean accuracy in the validation set for predicting nodule malignancy achieved 0.89 and 0.74, respectively. Meanwhile, the mean accuracy for predicting nodule mean diameter, consistency, and margin were 0.59, 0.74, and 0.75, respectively. We have developed an initial end-to-end pipeline that automatically detects nodules ≥ 5 mm on CT studies and labels identified nodules with radiologist-interpreted features automatically.