The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.

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

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities. APPROACH: We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations. KEY RESULTS: PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making. RESULTS: Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

Sustainability of an Opt-Out Electronic-Health Record-Based Tobacco Treatment Consult Service at a Large Safety-Net Hospital: A 6-Year Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Our safety-net hospital implemented a hospital-based tobacco treatment intervention in 2016. We previously showed the intervention, an "opt-out" Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based Best Practice Alert (BPA)+ order-set that triggers consultation to an inpatient Tobacco Treatment Consult (TTC) service for all patients who smoke, improves smoking abstinence. We now report on sustainability, 6 years after inception. AIMS AND METHODS: We analyzed data collected between July 2016-June 2022 of patients documented as "currently smoking" in the EHR. Across the 6 years, we used Pearson's correlation analysis to compare Adoption (clinician acceptance of the BPA+ order-set, thus generating consultation to the TTC service); Reach (number of consultations completed by the TTC service); and Effectiveness (receipt of pharmacotherapy orders between patients receiving and not receiving consultations). RESULTS: Among 39 558 adult admissions (July 2016-June 2022) with "currently smoking" status in the EHR for whom the BPA triggered, clinicians accepted the TTC order set on 50.4% (19 932/39 558), though acceptance varied across services (eg, Cardiology [71%] and Obstetrics-Gynecology 12%]). The TTC service consulted on 17% (6779/39 558) of patients due to staffing constraints. Consultations ordered (r = -0.28, p = .59) and completed (r = 0.45, p = .37) remained stable over 6-years. Compared to patients not receiving consultations, patients receiving consultations were more likely to receive pharmacotherapy orders overall (inpatient: 50.8% vs. 35.1%, p < .0001; at discharge: 27.1% vs. 10%, p < .0001) and in each year. CONCLUSIONS: The "opt-out" EHR-based TTC service is sustainable, though many did not receive consultations due to resource constraints. Health care systems should elevate the priority of hospital-based tobacco treatment programs to increase reach to underserved populations. IMPLICATIONS: Our study shows that opt-out approaches that utilize the EHR are a sustainable approach to providing evidence-based tobacco treatment to all hospitalized individuals who smoke, regardless of readiness to stop smoking and clinical condition.

Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: Considering a patient's full risk factor profile can promote personalized shared decision making (SDM). One way to accomplish this is through encounter tools that incorporate prediction models, but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice. We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS). Design: We conducted a qualitative study based on field notes from academic detailing visits during a multisite quality improvement program. The detailer engaged one-on-one with 96 primary care clinicians across multiple Veterans Affairs sites (7 medical centers and 6 outlying clinics) to get feedback on 1) the rationale for prediction-based LCS and 2) how to use the DecisionPrecision (DP) encounter tool with eligible patients to personalize LCS discussions. Results: Thematic content analysis from detailing visit data identified 6 categories of clinician willingness to use the DP tool to personalize SDM for LCS (adoption potential), varying from "Enthusiastic Potential Adopter" (n = 18) to "Definite Non-Adopter" (n = 16). Many clinicians (n = 52) articulated how they found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing. However, to varying degrees, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice. Limitations: The results are based on the clinician's initial reactions rather than longitudinal experience. Conclusions: While many primary care clinicians saw real value in using prediction to personalize LCS decisions, more support is needed to overcome barriers to using encounter tools in practice. Based on these findings, we propose several strategies that may facilitate the adoption of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS. Highlights: Encounter tools that incorporate prediction models promote personalized shared decision making (SDM), but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice.We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).While many clinicians found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.We propose several strategies to overcome adoption barriers and facilitate the use of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Practical Strategies for Co-design: The Case of Engaging Patients in Developing Patient-Facing Shared-Decision Making Materials for Lung Cancer Screening.

Co-design provides a meaningful way to engage patients in research. However, there is limited practical guidance. We used our co-design project to identify strategies for other researchers. An ethnographic case study design was used. Data included participant observation of co-design meetings, meeting minutes, analytic fieldnotes, qualitative patient interviews, and research team member self-reflections. Additionally, we got external feedback. We analyzed data iteratively. Our team included 5 patients and 6 researchers. We identified 3 strategies to include patients in co-design: (1) Deliberately build the team, from recruiting patients to specifying roles. (2) Tailor the meeting format to thoughtfully use patients' time and expertise. (3) Disrupt traditional hierarchies, to empower patients to actively participate. Researchers seeking to include patients as team members should consider: team composition and roles, leveraging meeting formats to optimize contributions and purposefully creating a culture of collaboration, so patient expertise informs the end product. Our work provides practical guidance for researchers to incorporate patient expertise in the co-design process and meaningfully involve them in their work.

Role of Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Systemic Sclerosis-Related Pulmonary Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: In systemic sclerosis (SSc), pulmonary hypertension remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Although conventionally classified as group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension, systemic sclerosis-related pulmonary hypertension (SSc-PH) is a heterogeneous disease. The contribution of left-sided cardiac disease in SSc-PH remains poorly understood. RESEARCH QUESTION: How often does left ventricular (LV) dysfunction occur in SSc among patients undergoing right heart catheterization and how does coexistent LV dysfunction with SSc-PH affect all-cause mortality in this patient population? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 165 patients with SSc who underwent both echocardiography and right heart catheterization. LV dysfunction was identified using LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) on speckle-tracking echocardiography based on a defined threshold of > -18%. SSc-PH was defined by a mean pulmonary artery pressure > 20 mmHg. RESULTS: Among patients with SSc who have undergone right heart catheterization, LV dysfunction occurred in 74.2% with SSc-PH and 51.2% without SSc-PH. The median survival of patients with SSc-PH and LV dysfunction was 67.9 (95% CI, 38.3-102.0) months, with a hazard ratio of 12.64 (95% CI, 1.73-92.60) for all-cause mortality when adjusted for age, sex, SSc disease duration, and FVC compared with patients with SSc without pulmonary hypertension with normal LV function. INTERPRETATION: LV dysfunction is common in SSc-PH. Patients with SSc-PH and LV dysfunction by LV GLS have increased all-cause mortality. This suggests that LV GLS may be helpful in identifying underlying LV dysfunction and in risk assessment of patients with SSc-PH.

Review of Interventions That Improve Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: A Cataloging of Strategies That Have Been Shown to Work (or Not).

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to decrease mortality from lung cancer by 20%. Yet, more than a decade since LCS was established as an evidence-based practice, < 20% of the eligible population in the United States has been screened. This review focuses on critically appraising interventions that have been designed to increase the initial uptake of LCS, including how they address known barriers to LCS and their effectiveness in overcoming these barriers. REVIEW FINDINGS: Studies were categorized based on the primary barriers that they addressed: (1) identifying eligible patients (including enhancing awareness through smoking history collection, outreach, and education), (2) shared decision-making-related interventions, and (3) patient navigation interventions. Four of the studies included multicomponent interventions, which often included patient navigation as one of the components. Overall, the effectiveness of the studies reviewed at improving LCS uptake generally was modest and was limited by the multilevel barriers that need to be overcome. Multicomponent interventions generally were more effective at improving LCS uptake, but most studies still had relatively low completion of screening. SUMMARY: Improving uptake of LCS requires learning from prior interventions to design multilevel interventions that address barriers to LCS at key steps and identifying which components of these interventions are effective and generalizable.

Cluster analysis identifies novel real-world lung disease-pulmonary hypertension subphenotypes: implications for treatment response.

Background: Clinical trials repurposing pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapies to patients with lung disease- or hypoxia-pulmonary hypertension (PH) (classified as World Health Organization Group 3 PH) have failed to show a consistent benefit. However, Group 3 PH clinical heterogeneity suggests robust phenotyping may inform detection of treatment-responsive subgroups. We hypothesised that cluster analysis would identify subphenotypes with differential responses to oral PAH therapy. Methods: Two k-means analyses were performed on a national cohort of US veterans with Group 3 PH; an inclusive model (I) of all treated patients (n=196) and a haemodynamic model (H) limited to patients with right heart catheterisations (n=112). The primary outcome was organ failure or all-cause mortality by cluster. An exploratory analysis evaluated within-cluster treatment effects. Results: Three distinct clusters of Group 3 PH patients were identified. In the inclusive model (C1I n=43, 21.9%; C2I n=102, 52.0%; C3I n=51, 26.0%), lung disease and spirometry drove cluster assignment. By contrast, in the haemodynamic model (C1H n=44, 39.3%; C2H n=43, 38.4%; C3H n=25, 22.3%), right heart catheterisation data surpassed the importance of lung disease and spirometry. In the haemodynamic model, compared to C3H, C1H experienced the greatest hazard for respiratory failure or death (HR 6.1, 95% CI 3.2-11.8). In an exploratory analysis, cluster determined treatment response (p=0.006). Conclusions regarding within-cluster treatment responses were limited by significant differences between select variables in the treated and untreated groups. Conclusions: Cluster analysis identifies novel real-world subphenotypes of Group 3 PH patients with distinct clinical trajectories. Future studies may consider this methodological approach to identify subgroups of heterogeneous patients that may be responsive to existing pulmonary vasodilatory therapies.

Longitudinal Assessment of Communication with Patient-Reported Outcomes During Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Many organizations recommend clinicians use structured communication processes, referred to as "shared decision making," to improve patient-reported outcomes for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS). RESEARCH QUESTION: Which components of high-quality patient-centered communication are associated with decision regret and distress? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal, repeated measures, cohort study among patients undergoing lung cancer screening in three different healthcare systems. We surveyed participants using validated measures of decision regret, decision satisfaction, distress, and patient-clinician communication domains up to a year after the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for LCS. For longitudinal analyses, we applied a series of generalized estimating equations to measure the association of the "patient as person" communication domain, screening knowledge, and decision concordance with decision regret and distress. RESULTS: When assessed 2-4 weeks after the LDCT, 202 (58.9%) and 8 (2.3%) of 343 total respondents reported mild and moderate/severe decision regret, respectively, while 29 (9.2%) participants of 315 total reported mild distress and 19 (6.0%) moderate or greater distress. The mean ± SD decision satisfaction scores (0 to 10 scale) were 9.82 ± 0.89, 9.08 ± 1.54, and 6.13 ± 3.40 among those with no, mild, and moderate/severe regret respectively. Distress scores remained low after the LDCT, even among those with nodules. Patient-centered communication domains were not associated with decision regret or distress. INTERPRETATION: Patients undergoing LCS rarely experience moderate or greater decision regret and distress. Although many participants reported mild decision regret, most were very satisfied over the year after their LDCT for LCS. Communication processes were not associated with regret and distress, suggesting that it may be challenging for communication interventions to reduce the harms of LCS.