Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

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.

Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening CT After a Provider Order for Screening in the PROSPR-Lung Consortium.

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.

The Perceived Usability of Virtual Visits Among Black Adults' Receiving Oncology Care: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the COVID-19 pandemic came rapid uptake in virtual oncology care. During this, sociodemographic inequities in access to virtual visits (VVs) have become apparent. To better understand these issues, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the perceived usability and acceptability of VVs among Black adults diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Adults who self-identified as Black and had a diagnosis of prostate, multiple myeloma, or head and neck cancer were recruited from 2 academic medical centers, and their community affiliates to participate in a semi-structured interview, regardless of prior VV experience. A patient and family advisory board was formed to inform all components of the study. Interviews were conducted between September 2, 2021 and February 23, 2022. Transcripts were organized topically, and themes and subthemes were determined through iterative and interpretive immersion/crystallization cycles. RESULTS: Of the 49 adults interviewed, 29 (59%) had participated in at least one VV. Three overarching themes were derived: (1) VVs felt comfortable and convenient in the right contexts; (2) the technology required for VVs with video presented new challenges, which were often resolved by an audio-only telephone call; and (3) participants reported preferring in-person visits, citing concerns regarding gaps in nonverbal communication, trusting providers, and distractions during VV. CONCLUSION: While VVs were reported to be acceptable in specific circumstances, Black adults reported preferring in-person care, in part due to a perceived lack of interpersonal connectedness. Nonetheless, retaining reimbursement for audio-only options for VVs is essential to ensure equitable access for those with less technology savvy and/or limited device/internet capabilities.

Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity.

Population models of cancer reflect the overall US population by drawing on numerous existing data resources for parameter inputs and calibration targets. Models require data inputs that are appropriately representative, collected in a harmonized manner, have minimal missing or inaccurate values, and reflect adequate sample sizes. Data resource priorities for population modeling to support cancer health equity include increasing the availability of data that 1) arise from uninsured and underinsured individuals and those traditionally not included in health-care delivery studies, 2) reflect relevant exposures for groups historically and intentionally excluded across the full cancer control continuum, 3) disaggregate categories (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and their intersections that conceal important variation in health outcomes, 4) identify specific populations of interest in clinical databases whose health outcomes have been understudied, 5) enhance health records through expanded data elements and linkage with other data types (eg, patient surveys, provider and/or facility level information, neighborhood data), 6) decrease missing and misclassified data from historically underrecognized populations, and 7) capture potential measures or effects of systemic racism and corresponding intervenable targets for change.

Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.

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.

Assessing a Polygenic Risk Score for Lung Cancer Susceptibility in Non-Hispanic White and Black Populations.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have become an increasingly popular approach to evaluate cancer susceptibility, but have not adequately represented Black populations in model development. METHODS: We used a previously published lung cancer PRS on the basis of 80 SNPs associated with lung cancer risk in the OncoArray cohort and validated in UK Biobank. The PRS was evaluated for association with lung cancer risk adjusting for age, sex, total pack-years, family history of lung cancer, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the top five principal components for genetic ancestry. RESULTS: Among the 80 PRS SNPs included in the score, 14 were significantly associated with lung cancer risk (P < 0.05) in INHALE White participants, while there were no significant SNPs among INHALE Black participants. After adjusting for covariates, the PRS was significantly associated with risk in Whites (continuous score P = 0.007), but not in Blacks (continuous score P = 0.88). The PRS remained a statistically significant predictor of lung cancer risk in Whites ineligible for lung cancer screening under current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Using a previously validated PRS, we did find some predictive ability for lung cancer in INHALE White participants beyond traditional risk factors. However, this effect was not observed in Black participants, indicating the need to develop and validate ancestry-specific lung cancer risk models. IMPACT: While a previously published lung cancer PRS was able to stratify White participants into different levels of risk, the model was not predictive in Blacks. Our findings highlight the need to develop and validate ancestry-specific lung cancer risk models.

Uptake of novel systemic therapy: Real world patterns among adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based chemotherapy to immunotherapy and targeted therapies associated with improved survival in clinical trials. As new therapies are approved for use, examining variations in use for treating patients in community practice can generate additional evidence as to the magnitude of their benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1,442 patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV NSCLC between 3/1/2012 and 12/31/2020. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns are described overall and by type of first- and second-line systemic therapy received. Prevalence ratios estimate the association of patient and tumor characteristics with receipt of first-line therapy. RESULTS: Within 180 days of diagnosis, 949 (66%) patients received first-line systemic therapy, increasing from 53% in 2012 to 71% in 2020 (p = 0.0004). The proportion of patients receiving first-line immunotherapy+/-chemotherapy (IMO) increased from 14%-66% (p<0.0001). Overall, 380 (26%) patients received both first- and second-line treatment, varying by year between 16%-36% (p = 0.18). The proportion of patients receiving second-line IMO increased from 13%-37% (p<0.0001). Older age and current smoking status were inversely associated with receipt of first-line therapy. Higher BMI, receipt of radiation, and diagnosis year were positively associated with receipt of first-line therapy. No association was found for race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: The proportion of advanced NSCLC patients receiving first- and second-line treatment increased over time, particularly for IMO treatments. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of these therapies on patient outcomes, including short-term, long-term, and financial toxicities. MICROABSTRACT: Systemic treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based therapies to immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Using de novo stage IV NSCLC patients identified from 4 healthcare systems, we examine trends in systemic therapy. We saw an increase in the portion of patients receiving any systemic therapy and a sharp increase in the proportion of patients receiving immunotherapy.

Smoking status and the association between patient-level factors and survival among lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking, advances in targeted therapies, and implementation of lung cancer screening have changed the clinical landscape for lung cancer. The proportion of lung cancer deaths is increasing in those who have never smoked cigarettes. To better understand contemporary patterns in survival among patients with lung cancer, a comprehensive evaluation of factors associated with survival, including differential associations by smoking status, is needed. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2019, were identified. We estimated all-cause and lung cancer-specific median, 5-year, and multivariable restricted mean survival time (RMST) to identify demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors associated with survival, overall and stratified by smoking status (never, former, and current). RESULTS: Analyses included 6813 patients with lung cancer: 13.9% never smoked, 54.2% formerly smoked, and 31.9% currently smoked. All-cause RMST through 5 years for those who never, formerly, and currently smoked was 32.1, 25.9, and 23.3 months, respectively. Lung cancer-specific RMST was 36.3 months, 30.3 months, and 26.0 months, respectively. Across most models, female sex, younger age, higher socioeconomic measures, first-course surgery, histology, and body mass index were positively associated, and higher stage was inversely associated with survival. Relative to White patients, Black patients had increased survival among those who formerly smoked. CONCLUSIONS: We identify actionable factors associated with survival between those who never, formerly, and currently smoked cigarettes. These findings illuminate opportunities to address underlying mechanisms driving lung cancer progression, including use of first-course treatment, and enhanced implementation of tailored smoking cessation interventions for individuals diagnosed with cancer.

Evidence of Novel Susceptibility Variants for Prostate Cancer and a Multiancestry Polygenic Risk Score Associated with Aggressive Disease in Men of African Ancestry.

BACKGROUND: Genetic factors play an important role in prostate cancer (PCa) susceptibility. OBJECTIVE: To discover common genetic variants contributing to the risk of PCa in men of African ancestry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a meta-analysis of ten genome-wide association studies consisting of 19378 cases and 61620 controls of African ancestry. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Common genotyped and imputed variants were tested for their association with PCa risk. Novel susceptibility loci were identified and incorporated into a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS). The PRS was evaluated for associations with PCa risk and disease aggressiveness. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Nine novel susceptibility loci for PCa were identified, of which seven were only found or substantially more common in men of African ancestry, including an African-specific stop-gain variant in the prostate-specific gene anoctamin 7 (ANO7). A multiancestry PRS of 278 risk variants conferred strong associations with PCa risk in African ancestry studies (odds ratios [ORs] >3 and >5 for men in the top PRS decile and percentile, respectively). More importantly, compared with men in the 40-60% PRS category, men in the top PRS decile had a significantly higher risk of aggressive PCa (OR = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.10-1.38, p = 4.4 × 10-4). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the importance of large-scale genetic studies in men of African ancestry for a better understanding of PCa susceptibility in this high-risk population and suggests a potential clinical utility of PRS in differentiating between the risks of developing aggressive and nonaggressive disease in men of African ancestry. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this large genetic study in men of African ancestry, we discovered nine novel prostate cancer (PCa) risk variants. We also showed that a multiancestry polygenic risk score was effective in stratifying PCa risk, and was able to differentiate risk of aggressive and nonaggressive disease.

Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have benefit in cancer clinical trials, real-world applications are lacking. This study describes the method of implementation of a cancer enterprise-wide PROMs platform. METHODS: After establishing a multispecialty stakeholder group within a large integrated health system, domain-specific instruments were selected from the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments (pain interference, fatigue, physical function, and depression) and were administered at varying frequencies throughout each patient's cancer journey. All cancer patients with an oncologic visit were eligible to complete the PROMs prior to the visit using a patient portal, or at the time of the visit using a tablet. PROMs were integrated into clinical workflow. Clinical partnerships were essential for successful implementation. Descriptive preliminary data were compared using multivariable logistic regression to determine the factors associated with method of PROMs completion. RESULTS: From September 16, 2020 to July 23, 2021, 23 of 38 clinical units (60.5%) implemented PROMs over 2392 encounters and 1666 patients. Approximately one third of patients (n = 629, 37.8%) used the patient portal. Black patients (aOR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) and patients residing in zip codes with higher percentage of unemployment (aOR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.41) were among the least likely to complete PROMs using the patient portal. CONCLUSIONS: Successful system-wide implementation of PROMs among cancer patients requires engagement from multispecialty stakeholders and investment from clinical partners. Attention to the method of PROMs collection is required in order to reduce the potential for disparities, such as Black populations and those residing in areas with high levels of unemployment.

Percentage Up to Date With Chest Computed Tomography Among Those Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Stage Migration and Lung Cancer Incidence After Initiation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence from clinical trials of favorable shifts in cancer stage and improvements in lung cancer-specific mortality, the effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) in clinical practice has not been clearly revealed. METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of patients diagnosed with a primary lung cancer between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2019, at one of four U.S. health care systems. The primary outcome variables were cancer stage distribution and annual age-adjusted lung cancer incidence. The primary exposure variable was receipt of at least one low-dose computed tomography for LCS before cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 3678 individuals were diagnosed with an incident lung cancer during the study period; 404 (11%) of these patients were diagnosed after initiation of LCS. As screening volume increased, the proportion of patients diagnosed with lung cancer after LCS initiation also rose from 0% in the first quartile of 2014 to 20% in the third quartile of 2019. LCS did not result in a significant change in the overall incidence of lung cancer (average annual percentage change [AAPC]: -0.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): -4.7 to 3.2]) between 2014 and 2018. Stage-specific incidence rates increased for stage I cancer (AAPC = 8.0 [95% CI: 0.8-15.7]) and declined for stage IV disease (AAPC = -6.0 [95% CI: -11.2 to -0.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of LCS at four diverse health care systems has resulted in a favorable shift to a higher incidence of stage I cancer with an associated decline in stage IV disease. Overall lung cancer incidence did not increase, suggesting a limited impact of overdiagnosis.

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Lung Cancer Screening Criteria and Cardiopulmonary Comorbidities.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening criteria should select candidates with minimal cardiopulmonary comorbidities who are fit for curative lung cancer resection. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 728 patients with lung cancer for screening eligibility using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria (n = 370). If ineligible for screening, they were further assessed for eligibility using the USPSTF 2021 (n = 121) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network group 2 (NCCN gp 2) (n = 155). Comparisons of cardiopulmonary comorbidities between patients selected by the different lung cancer screening criteria were performed. Excluding missing data, a similar comparison was done between USPSTF 2013 (n = 283) and PLCOm2012 (risk threshold ≥1.51%) (n = 118). Results: Patients eligible for USPSTF 2021 and NCCN gp 2 had lower rates of airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity <0.7) compared with those in USPSTF 2013 (55.4% and 56.8% versus 70.5%). Both USPSTF 2021 and NCCN gp 2 groups had less severe airflow obstruction; only 11.6% and 12.9% of patients, respectively, had percent-predicted FEV1 less than 50% versus 20.3% in the USPSTF 2013 group. Comparing USPSTF 2013 and PLCOm2012 revealed no significant differences in age or the rate of airflow obstruction (p = 0.06 and p = 0.09 respectively). Nevertheless, rates of percent-predicted FEV1 less than 50% and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide less than 50% were lower in the PLCOm2012 group compared with those in the USPSTF 2013 group (22.3% versus 10.2% and 32.6% versus 20.0%), respectively. Conclusions: The USPSTF 2021 qualifies an additional group of screening candidates who are healthier with better lung reserve, translating to better surgical candidacy but potentially more overdiagnosis. The PLCOm2012, with its better accuracy in selecting patients at risk of cancer, selects an older group with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but with good lung reserve and potentially less overdiagnosis.

Developing an algorithm across integrated healthcare systems to identify a history of cancer using electronic medical records.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor registries in integrated healthcare systems (IHCS) have high precision for identifying incident cancer but often miss recently diagnosed cancers or those diagnosed outside of the IHCS. We developed an algorithm using the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify people with a history of cancer not captured in the tumor registry to identify adults, aged 40-65 years, with no history of cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The algorithm was developed at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, and then applied to 7 other IHCS. We included tumor registry data, diagnosis and procedure codes, chemotherapy files, oncology encounters, and revenue data to develop the algorithm. Each IHCS adapted the algorithm to their EMR data and calculated sensitivity and specificity to evaluate the algorithm's performance after iterative chart review. RESULTS: We included data from over 1.26 million eligible people across 8 IHCS; 55 601 (4.4%) were in a tumor registry, and 44848 (3.5%) had a reported cancer not captured in a registry. The common attributes of the final algorithm at each site were diagnosis and procedure codes. The sensitivity of the algorithm at each IHCS was 90.65%-100%, and the specificity was 87.91%-100%. DISCUSSION: Relying only on tumor registry data would miss nearly half of the identified cancers. Our algorithm was robust and required only minor modifications to adapt to other EMR systems. CONCLUSION: This algorithm can identify cancer cases regardless of when the diagnosis occurred and may be useful for a variety of research applications or quality improvement projects around cancer care.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-Up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

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.

Comparison Between the 2021 USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Criteria and Other Lung Cancer Screening Criteria for Racial Disparity in Eligibility.

IMPORTANCE: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) broadened its age and smoking pack-year requirement for lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: To compare the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening criteria with other lung cancer screening criteria and evaluate whether the sensitivity and specificity of these criteria differ by race. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study included 912 patients with lung cancer and 1457 controls without lung cancer enrolled in an epidemiology study (INHALE [Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology]) in the Detroit metropolitan area between May 15, 2012, and March 31, 2018. Patients with lung cancer and controls were 21 to 89 years of age; patients with lung cancer who were never smokers and controls who were never smokers were not included in these analyses. Statistical analysis was performed from August 31, 2020, to April 13, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The study assessed whether patients with lung cancer and controls would have qualified for lung cancer screening using the 2013 USPSTF, 2021 USPSTF, and 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCOm2012) screening criteria. Sensitivity was defined as the percentage of patients with lung cancer who qualified for screening, while specificity was defined as the percentage of controls who did not qualify for lung cancer screening. RESULTS: Participants included 912 patients with a lung cancer diagnosis (493 women [54%]; mean [SD] age, 63.7 [9.5] years) and 1457 control participants without lung cancer at enrollment (795 women [55%]; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [9.6] years). With the use of 2021 USPSTF criteria, 590 patients with lung cancer (65%) were eligible for screening compared with 619 patients (68%) per the PLCOm2012 criteria and 445 patients (49%) per the 2013 USPSTF criteria. With the use of 2013 USPSTF criteria, significantly more White patients than African American patients with lung cancer (324 of 625 [52%] vs 121 of 287 [42%]) would have been eligible for screening. This racial disparity was absent when using 2021 USPSTF criteria (408 of 625 [65%] White patients vs 182 of 287 [63%] African American patients) and PLCOm2012 criteria (427 of 625 [68%] White patients vs 192 of 287 [67%] African American patients). The 2013 USPSTF criteria excluded 950 control participants (65%), while the PLCOm2012 criteria excluded 843 control participants (58%), and the 2021 USPSTF criteria excluded 709 control participants (49%). The 2013 USPSTF criteria excluded fewer White control participants than African American control participants (514 of 838 [61%] vs 436 of 619 [70%]). This racial disparity is again absent when using 2021 USPSTF criteria (401 of 838 [48%] White patients vs 308 of 619 [50%] African American patients) and PLCOm2012 guidelines (475 of 838 [57%] White patients vs 368 of 619 [60%] African American patients). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that the USPSTF 2021 guideline changes improve on earlier, fixed screening criteria for lung cancer, broadening eligibility and reducing the racial disparity in access to screening.