RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan for lung cancer screening is underutilized. Studies suggest that up to one-third of providers do not know the current lung cancer screening guidelines. Thus, identifying the barriers to utilization of LDCT scan is essential. METHODS: Primary care providers in three different healthcare settings in the United States were surveyed to assess provider knowledge of LDCT scan screening criteria, lung cancer screening practices, and barriers to the utilization of LDCT scan screening. Fisher's Exact, Chi-Squared, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare provider responses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between provider characteristics and the likelihood of utilizing LDCT scan for lung cancer screening. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 614 providers, with a 15.7% response rate. Overall, 29.2% of providers report never ordering LDCT scans for eligible patients. Providers practicing at a community or academic hospital more frequently order LDCT scans than those practicing at a safety net hospital. Academic- and community-based providers received a significantly higher mean knowledge score than safety net-based providers [academic 6.84 (SD 1.33), community 6.72 (SD 1.46), safety net 5.85 (SD 1.38); P<0.01]. Overall, only 6.2% of respondents correctly identified all six Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eligibility criteria when challenged with three incorrect criteria. Common barriers to utilization of LDCT scan included failure of the electronic medical record (EMR) to notify providers of eligible patients (54.7%), patient refusal (37%), perceived high false-positive rate leading to unnecessary procedures (18.9%), provider time constraints (16.8%), and lack of insurance coverage (13.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider knowledge of lung cancer screening guidelines varies, perhaps contributing to underutilization of LDCT scan for lung cancer screening. Improved provider education at safety net hospitals and improving EMR-based best practice alerts may improve the rate of lung cancer screening.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Concern over high false-positive rates and the potential for unintended harm to patients is a critical component of the lack of widespread adoption of lung cancer screening. METHODS: An institutional database was used to identify patients who underwent lung cancer screening between 2/2015 and 2/2018 at Rush University Medical Center and Rush Oak Park Hospital. Reads were executed by dedicated thoracic radiologists and communicated using the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS V.1). RESULTS: Six hundred and four patients were screened over the study period. We identified 21 primary lung cancers and 8 incidental cancers. We identified a false-positive rate of 17.5%. Only 9 patients underwent further investigative workup for benign disease (5.3%); however, only 4 (2.9%) of those patients were found to have inflammatory or infectious lesions, which are common mimickers of lung cancer. Excluding Lung-RADS category 3 for the purpose of quantifying risk of unintended harm from unnecessary procedures, we found a 6.9% false-positive rate, while diagnosing 25% of all Lung-RADS category 4 patients with primary lung cancer. CONCLUSION: False-positive rates in lung cancer screening programs continue to decline with improved radiologic expertise. Additionally, false-positive reporting overestimates the risk of unintended harm from further investigative procedures as only a percentage of positive findings are generally considered for tissue diagnosis (i.e., Lung-RADS category 4).