Search

Previous studies demonstrate that self-reports of mammography screening for breast cancer and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer demonstrate concordance, based on adherence to screening guidelines, with electronic medical records (EMRs) in over 90% of those interviewed, as well as high sensitivity and specificity, and can be used for monitoring our Healthy People goals. However, for screening tests for cervical and lung cancers, and for various sub-populations, concordance between self-report and EMRs has been noticeably lower with poor sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to test the validity and reliability of lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We present the protocol for a study designed to measure the validity and reliability of the NHIS cancer screening questions compared to EMRs from four US-based healthcare systems. We planned a randomized trial of a phone- vs web-based survey with NHIS questions that were previously revised based on extensive cognitive interviewing. Our planned sample size will be 1576 validity interviews, and 1260 interviews randomly assigned at 1 or 3 months after the initial interview. We are enrolling people eligible for cancer screening based on age, sex, and smoking history per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We will evaluate question validity using concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and report-to-records ratio. We further are randomizing participants to complete a second survey 1 vs 3 months later to assess question reliability. We suggest that typical measures of concordance may need to be reconsidered in evaluating cancer screening questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT. Objective: To determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening. Design and Subjects: We conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)–Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Main Measures: The primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date. Key Results: During the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake. Conclusions: Overall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality. Nevertheless, it may also lead to potential harms, including complications arising from downstream invasive procedures. However, the magnitude of such potential harms in real-world practice remains unknown. The current study evaluated downstream use of invasive procedures and procedural complications after lung cancer screening in 5 diverse U.S. health care systems. Visual Abstract. Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening.: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality. Nevertheless, it may also lead to potential harms, including complications arising from downstream invasive procedures. However, the magnitude of such potential harms in real-world practice remains unknown. The current study evaluated downstream use of invasive procedures and procedural complications after lung cancer screening in 5 diverse U.S. health care systems. Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. Objective: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: 5 U.S. health care systems. Patients: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. Measurements: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Results: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). Limitation: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. Conclusion: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in the United States recommend LCS for those age 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. We tested the performance of simple smoking-related criteria derived from electronic health record (EHR) data and developed and tested the performance of a multivariable model in predicting LCS eligibility. METHODS: Analyses were completed within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). In our primary validity analyses, the reference standard LCS eligibility was based on self-reported smoking data collected via survey. Within one PROSPR-Lung health system, we used a training data set and penalized multivariable logistic regression using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to select EHR-based variables into the prediction model including demographics, smoking history, diagnoses, and prescription medications. A separate test data set assessed model performance. We also conducted external validation analysis in a separate health system and reported AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy metrics associated with the Youden Index. RESULTS: There were 14,214 individuals with survey data to assess LCS eligibility in primary analyses. The overall performance for assigning LCS eligibility status as measured by the AUC values at the two health systems was 0.940 and 0.938. At the Youden Index cutoff value, performance metrics were as follows: accuracy, 0.855 and 0.895; sensitivity, 0.886 and 0.920; specificity, 0.896 and 0.850; PPV, 0.357 and 0.444; and NPV, 0.988 and 0.992. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that health systems can use an EHR-derived multivariable prediction model to aid in the identification of those who may be eligible for LCS. This EHR-based algorithm can help health systems employ a population management approach to lung cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a retrospective study on lung cancer adults, and two urban healthcare systems with decentralized lung cancer screening (LCS) programs. Results show that Black patients receive annual LCS less often than White patients, but that among both Black and White patients, adherence improved with increasing degrees of socioeconomic status (SES). SES partially mediated the racial disparity in annual LCS adherence, with nearly 50% of the total effect.

Rationale: Black patients receive recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up care less frequently than White patients, but it is unknown if this racial disparity persists across both decentralized and centralized LCS programs. Objectives: To determine adherence to American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations among individuals undergoing LCS at either decentralized or centralized programs and to evaluate the association of race with LCS adherence. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients receiving LCS at five heterogeneous U.S. healthcare systems. We calculated adherence to annual LCS among patients with a negative baseline screen (Lung-RADS 1 or 2) and recommended follow-up care among those with a positive baseline screen (Lung-RADS 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) stratified by type of LCS program and evaluated the association between race and adherence using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Results: Of the 6,134 total individuals receiving LCS, 5,142 (83.8%) had negative baseline screens, and 992 (16.2%) had positive baseline screens. Adherence to both annual LCS (34.8% vs. 76.1%; P < 0.001) and recommended follow-up care (63.9% vs. 74.6%; P < 0.001) was lower at decentralized compared with centralized programs. Among individuals with negative baseline screens, a racial disparity in adherence was observed only at decentralized screening programs (interaction term, P < 0.001). At decentralized programs, Black race was associated with 27% reduced adherence to annual LCS (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.84), whereas at centralized programs, no effect by race was observed (aRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In contrast, among those with positive baseline screens, there was no significant difference by race for adherence to recommended follow-up care by type of LCS program (decentralized aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; centralized aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; interaction term, P = 0.176). Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of individuals screened for lung cancer, adherence to both annual LCS and recommended follow-up care was greater at centralized screening programs. Black patients were less likely to receive annual LCS than White patients at decentralized compared with centralized LCS programs. Our results highlight the need for further study of healthcare system-level mechanisms to optimize longitudinal LCS care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Lung-RADS classification was developed to standardize reporting and management of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomographic (LDCT) imaging. Although variation in Lung-RADS distribution between healthcare systems has been reported, it is unclear if this is explained by patient characteristics, radiologist experience with lung cancer screening, or other factors. Objectives: Our objective was to determine if patient or radiologist factors are associated with Lung-RADS score. Methods: In the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) Lung consortium, we conducted a study of patients who received their first screening LDCT imaging at one of the five healthcare systems in the PROSPR Lung Research Center from May 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017. Data on LDCT scans, patient factors, and radiologist characteristics were obtained via electronic health records. LDCT scan findings were categorized using Lung-RADS (negative [1], benign [2], probably benign [3], or suspicious [4]). We used generalized estimating equations with a multinomial distribution to compare the odds of Lung-RADS 3, and separately Lung-RADS 4, versus Lung-RADS 1 or 2 and estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between Lung-RADS assignment and patient and radiologist characteristics. Results: Analyses included 8,556 patients; 24% were assigned Lung-RADS 1, 60% Lung-RADS 2, 10% Lung-RADS 3, and 5% Lung-RADS 4. Age was positively associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) and 4 (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was positively associated with Lung-RADS 4 (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.45-2.20); obesity was inversely associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.84) and 4 (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.75). There was no association between sex, race, ethnicity, education, or smoking status and Lung-RADS assignment. Radiologist volume of interpreting screening LDCT scans, years in practice, and thoracic specialty were also not associated with Lung-RADS assignment. Conclusions: Healthcare systems that are comprised of patients with an older age distribution or higher levels of COPD will have a greater proportion of screening LDCT scans with Lung-RADS 3 or 4 findings and should plan for additional resources to support appropriate and timely management of noted positive findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Text messaging could be effective for determining patient eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS). We explored people's willingness to share their tobacco use history via text message among diverse groups. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: In 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey asking respondents about cellular phone usage, smoking habits, sociodemographic characteristics, and the likelihood of responding to a text message from their health care provider's office about tobacco use. We used χ² and analysis of variance tests for.comparisons. RESULTS: Among 745 respondents, 90% used text messaging casually. Overall, 54% never smoked, 33% currently smoked, and 13% previously smoked. Six percent were LCS eligible, and 20% used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (dual users). Current smokers were significantly younger, less likely to be female, and more likely to use text messaging. LCS-eligible respondents were older and less likely to have a high income. Dual users were younger, less likely to report female gender and live in rural areas, and more likely to have a college education and high income. Most respondents (83%) indicated they were likely to respond to text message inquiries regarding smoking status. Middle-aged respondents (mean age, 37 years) were significantly more willing to report smoking status than younger or older respondents (91% vs 84% and 84%, respectively). Respondents with no college education (83% vs 88%) or with a low income vs a middle or high income (81% vs 86% and 88%, respectively) were significantly less willing to report smoking status via text messages. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging showed promise for evaluating smoking history and for simplifying the process of identifying LCS-eligible individuals. However, achieving equity in identifying eligibility for LCS requires the implementation of multimodal strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice.Research Question: How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS?Study Design and Methods: For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically.Results: We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality.Interpretation: Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Lung cancer screening registries can monitor screening outcomes and improve quality of care.Objectives: To describe nascent lung cancer screening programs and share efficient data collection approaches for mandatory registry reporting in four integrated health care systems of the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Research Network.Methods: We documented the distinctive characteristics of lung cancer screening programs, and we provide examples of strategies to facilitate data collection and describe early challenges and possible solutions. In addition, we report preliminary data on use and outcomes of screening with low-dose computed tomography at each of the participating sites.Results: Programs varied in approaches to confirming patient eligibility, ordering screening low-dose computed tomographic scans, and coordinating follow-up care. Most data elements were collected from structured fields in electronic health records, but sites also made use of standardized order templates, local procedure codes, identifiable hashtags in radiology reports, and natural language processing algorithms. Common challenges included incomplete documentation of tobacco smoking history, difficulty distinguishing between scans performed for screening versus diagnosis or surveillance, and variable adherence with use of standardized templates. Adherence with eligibility criteria as well as the accuracy and completeness of data collection appeared to depend at least partly on availability of personnel and other resources to support the successful implementation of screening.Conclusions: To maximize the effectiveness of lung cancer screening, minimize the burden of data collection, and facilitate research and quality improvement, clinical workflow and information technology should be purposefully designed to ensure that patients meet eligibility criteria and receive appropriate follow-up testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prospective cohort studies contribute importantly to understanding the role of lifestyle, genetic, and other factors in chronic disease etiology.Methods: The American Cancer Society (ACS) recruited a new prospective cohort study, Cancer Prevention Study 3 (CPS-3), between 2006 and 2013 from 35 states and Puerto Rico. Enrollment took place primarily at ACS community events and at community enrollment "drives." At enrollment sites, participants completed a brief survey that included an informed consent, identifying information necessary for follow-up, and key exposure information. They also provided a waist measure and a nonfasting blood sample. Most participants also completed a more comprehensive baseline survey at home that included extensive medical, lifestyle, and other information. Participants will be followed for incident cancers through linkage with state cancer registries and for cause-specific mortality through linkage with the National Death Index.Results: In total, 303,682 participants were enrolled. Of these, 254,650 completed the baseline survey and are considered "fully" enrolled; they will be sent repeat surveys periodically for at least the next 20 years to update exposure information. The remaining participants (n = 49,032) will not be asked to update exposure information but will be followed for outcomes. Twenty-three percent of participants were men, 17.3% reported a race or ethnicity other than "white," and the median age at enrollment was 47 years.Conclusions: CPS-3 will be a valuable resource for studies of cancer and other outcomes because of its size; its diversity with respect to age, ethnicity, and geography; and the availability of blood samples and detailed questionnaire information collected over time. Cancer 2017;123:2014-2024. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusions Despite increased recognition that structural racism contributes to poorer health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, there are knowledge gaps about how current patterns of racial residential segregation are associated with cancer screening uptake. The authors examined associations between Black residential segregation and screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer among non‐Hispanic Black and non‐Hispanic White adults.This was a retrospective study of CRC and cervical cancer screening‐eligible adults from five health care systems within the Population‐Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) Consortium (cohort entry, 2010–2012). Residential segregation was measured using site‐specific quartiles of the Black local isolation score (LIS). The outcome was receipt of CRC or cervical cancer screening within 3 years of cohort entry (2010–2015). Logistic regression was used to calculate associations between the LIS and screening completion, adjusting for patient‐level covariates.Among CRC (n = 642,661) and cervical cancer (n = 163,340) screening‐eligible patients, 456,526 (71.0%) and 106,124 (65.0%), respectively, received screening. Across PROSPR sites, living in neighborhoods with higher LIS tended to be associated with lower odds of CRC screening (Kaiser Permanente Northern California: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] LIS trend in Black patients, 0.95 [p < .001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.98 [p < .001]; Kaiser Permanente Southern California: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 0.98 [p = .026]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.01 [p = .023]; Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.97 [p = .002]. However, for cervical cancer screening, associations with the LIS varied by site and race (Kaiser Permanente Washington: aOR LIS trend in White patients, 0.95 [p < .001]; Mass General Brigham: aOR LIS trend in Black patients, 1.12 [p < .001]; aOR LIS trend in White patients, 1.03 [p < .001]).Across five diverse health care systems, the direction of the association between Black residential segregation and screening varied by PROSPR site, race, and screening type. Additional research, including studies that examine multiple dimensions of segregation and structural racism using intersectional approaches, are needed to further disentangle these relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B PURPOSE: b In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for individuals ages 55-80 with a smoking history of 30 pack-years or more. B METHODS: b Using a cohort of patients referred for lung cancer screening between March 1, 2015 and February 28, 2018 (N=4,097), we used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether race or smoking status were associated with completion of an initial lung screening exam. However, this finding differed by racial group; among whites, the adjusted odds ratio for lung cancer screening uptake comparing former smokers to current smokers was 1.32 (95% CI 1.10-1.59). [Extracted from the article]

However, there is wide variation in Lung-RADS assignment between radiologists, and it is unclear if this variation is explained by patient characteristics, provider experience, or other factors. Ordinal logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the odds of a higher Lung-RADS assignment between groups of patients, and between groups of radiologists, according to the characteristics above. Lung-RADS assignment correlated with cancer detection; among those with Lung-RADS 4 (N=192), 15.1% had lung cancer; for Lung-RADS 3 (N=331), 1.5% had lung cancer; for Lung-RADS 1 (N=322) and 2 (N=1,568), 0 had lung cancer diagnosed within 1 year. [Extracted from the article]

Authors aimed to calculate the percentage up-to-date with testing in the context of lung cancer screening across 5 healthcare systems and evaluate differences according to patient and health system characteristics. Lung cancer screening‒eligible individuals receiving care within the five systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung consortium from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 were included in analyses. Data collection was completed on June 15, 2021; final analyses were completed on April 1, 2022. Chest computed tomography scans and patient characteristics were obtained through electronic health records and used to calculate the percentage completing a chest computed tomography scan in the previous 12 months (considered up-to-date). The association of patient and healthcare system factors with being up-to-date was evaluated with adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% CIs using log-binomial regression models. There were 29,417 individuals eligible for lung cancer screening as of September 30, 2019; 8,333 (28.3%) were up-to-date with testing. Those aged 65–74 years (prevalence ratio=1.19; CI=1.15, 1.24, versus ages 55–64), those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (prevalence ratio=2.05; CI=1.98, 2.13), and those in higher SES census tracts (prevalence ratio=1.22; CI=1.16, 1.30, highest quintile versus lowest) were more likely to be up-to-date. Currently smoking (prevalence ratio=0.91; CI=0.88, 0.95), having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (prevalence ratio=0.83; CI=0.77, 0.88), identifying as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (prevalence ratio=0.79; CI=0.68, 0.92), and having a decentralized lung cancer screening program (prevalence ratio=0.77; CI=0.74, 0.80) were inversely associated with being up-to-date. The percentage up-to-date with testing among those eligible for lung cancer screening is well below up-to-date estimates for other types of cancer screening, and disparities in lung cancer screening participation remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]