Increasing Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening Among Emergency Department Patients: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for lung cancer. The ED, therefore, is an optimal environment for interventions to promote LCS. OBJECTIVES: Demonstrate the operational feasibility of identifying ED patients in need of LCS, referring them to LCS services, deploying a text message intervention to promote LCS, and conducting follow-up to determine LCS uptake. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine the feasibility and provide estimates of the preliminary efficacies of 1) basic referral for LCS and 2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of LCS among ED patients. Participants aged 50 to 80, identified as eligible for LCS, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval LCS uptake (primary outcome), barriers to screening, and perceptions of the study interventions. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were surveyed, with 198 identified as eligible for LCS and subsequently randomized. Results indicated that 24% of participants with follow-up data received LCS (11% of the total randomized sample). Rates of screening at follow-up were similar across study arms. The intervention significantly improved normative perceptions of LCS (p = 0.015; Cohen's d = 0.45). CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of ED-based interventions to increase uptake of LCS among ED patients. A scalable ED-based intervention that increases LCS uptake could reduce lung cancer mortality.

Understanding the perceived benefits, barriers, and cues to action for lung cancer screening among Latinos: A qualitative study.

Introduction: Rates of lung cancer screening among Latinos remain low. The purpose of the study was to understand the perceived benefits, barriers, and cues to action for lung cancer screening among Latinos. Methods: Participants (N=20) were recruited using community-based recruitment strategies. Eligibility criteria included: 1) self-identified as Hispanic/Latino, 2) spoke English and/or Spanish, and 3) met the USA Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening. Interviews were conducted in Spanish and English, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Using the health belief model, a qualitative theoretical analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Results: Participants' mean age was 58.3 years old (SD=5.8), half of the participants were female, 55% had completed high school or lower educational level, and 55% reported speaking more Spanish than English. All participants were currently smoking. Fourteen participants (70%) were unaware of lung cancer screening, and eighteen (90%) did not know they were eligible for lung cancer screening. Regarding lung cancer screening, participants reported multiple perceived benefits (e.g., smoking cessation, early detection of lung cancer, increased survivorship) and barriers (e.g., fear of outcomes, cost, lung cancer screening not being recommended by their clinician). Lastly, multiple cues to actions for lung cancer screening were identified (e.g., family as a cue to action for getting screened). Conclusions: Most Latinos who were eligible for lung cancer screening were unaware of it and, when informed, they reported multiple perceived benefits, barriers, and cues to action. These factors provide concrete operational strategies to address lung cancer screening among Latinos.

Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening in the US, 2022.

This cross-sectional study compares lung cancer screening prevalence in 2022 among individuals eligible by 2021 vs 2013 criteria by sociodemographics and state.

Assessment of Advanced Diagnostic Bronchoscopy Outcomes for Peripheral Lung Lesions: A Delphi Consensus Definition of Diagnostic Yield and Recommendations for Patient-centered Study Designs. An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Research Statement.

Background: Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy targeting the lung periphery has developed at an accelerated pace over the last two decades, whereas evidence to support introduction of innovative technologies has been variable and deficient. A major gap relates to variable reporting of diagnostic yield, in addition to limited comparative studies. Objectives: To develop a research framework to standardize the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy techniques for peripheral lung lesions. Specifically, we aimed for consensus on a robust definition of diagnostic yield, and we propose potential study designs at various stages of technology development. Methods: Panel members were selected for their diverse expertise. Workgroup meetings were conducted in virtual or hybrid format. The cochairs subsequently developed summary statements, with voting proceeding according to a modified Delphi process. The statement was cosponsored by the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 statements on the definition of diagnostic outcomes and study designs. A strict definition of diagnostic yield should be used, and studies should be reported according to the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines. Clinical or radiographic follow-up may be incorporated into the reference standard definition but should not be used to calculate diagnostic yield from the procedural encounter. Methodologically robust comparative studies, with incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, are needed to adequately assess and validate minimally invasive diagnostic technologies targeting the lung periphery. Conclusions: This American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians statement aims to provide a research framework that allows greater standardization of device validation efforts through clearly defined diagnostic outcomes and robust study designs. High-quality studies, both industry and publicly funded, can support subsequent health economic analyses and guide implementation decisions in various healthcare settings.

Methods for Using Race and Ethnicity in Prediction Models for Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.

Importance: Using race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models can reduce or inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities in medical decisions. Objective: To compare eligibility for lung cancer screening in a contemporary representative US population by refitting the life-years gained from screening-computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model to exclude race and ethnicity vs a counterfactual eligibility approach that recalculates life expectancy for racial and ethnic minority individuals using the same covariates but substitutes White race and uses the higher predicted life expectancy, ensuring that historically underserved groups are not penalized. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 2 submodels composing LYFS-CT NoRace were refit and externally validated without race and ethnicity: the lung cancer death submodel in participants of a large clinical trial (recruited 1993-2001; followed up until December 31, 2009) who ever smoked (n = 39 180) and the all-cause mortality submodel in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 1997-2001 participants aged 40 to 80 years who ever smoked (n = 74 842, followed up until December 31, 2006). Screening eligibility was examined in NHIS 2015-2018 participants aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to September 2022. Exposure: Including and removing race and ethnicity (African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, White) in each LYFS-CT submodel. Main Outcomes and Measures: By race and ethnicity: calibration of the LYFS-CT NoRace model and the counterfactual approach (ratio of expected to observed [E/O] outcomes), US individuals eligible for screening, predicted days of life gained from screening by LYFS-CT. Results: The NHIS 2015-2018 included 25 601 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked (2769 African American, 649 Asian American, 1855 Hispanic American, and 20 328 White individuals). Removing race and ethnicity from the submodels underestimated lung cancer death risk (expected/observed [E/O], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00) and all-cause mortality (E/O, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) in African American individuals. It also overestimated mortality in Hispanic American (E/O, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) and Asian American individuals (E/O, 1.14, 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Consequently, the LYFS-CT NoRace model increased Hispanic American and Asian American eligibility by 108% and 73%, respectively, while reducing African American eligibility by 39%. Using LYFS-CT with the counterfactual all-cause mortality model better maintained calibration across groups and increased African American eligibility by 13% without reducing eligibility for Hispanic American and Asian American individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, removing race and ethnicity miscalibrated LYFS-CT submodels and substantially reduced African American eligibility for lung cancer screening. Under counterfactual eligibility, no one became ineligible, and African American eligibility increased, demonstrating the potential for maintaining model accuracy while reducing disparities.

Are Black and Latino adolescents being asked if they use electronic cigarettes and advised not to use them? Results from a community-based survey.

Objective: This study aimed to explore whether African American/Black and Hispanic/Latino adolescents are being asked about electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use (vaping) and advised not to use them. Methods: In 2021, adolescents (N = 362) with no vaping history, self-identified as African American/Black and/or Hispanic/Latino, and able to read and speak English and/or Spanish were recruited through partner schools and community-based organizations. Participants completed a survey reporting sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, and language of preference) and they were asked about e-cigarette use and/or were advised not to use them by a health professional. Results: In total, 12% of African American/Black and 5% of Hispanic/Latino participants reported not seeing a health professional in the year prior to enrollment. Of the participants who reported visiting a health professional, 50.8% reported being asked and advised about vaping. Over one-quarter (28.4%) of participants were neither asked nor advised regarding vaping. Compared to English-speaking participants, Spanish-speaking participants were significantly less likely to be asked about e-cigarette use (45.2 vs. 63.9%, p = 0.009) and advised not to use them (40.3 vs. 66.9%, p < 0.001). Moreover, compared to African American/Black participants, Hispanic/Latino participants were significantly less likely to be advised not to use e-cigarettes (52.9 vs. 68.6%, p = 0.018). Furthermore, compared to male participants, female participants were significantly less likely to be advised not to use e-cigarettes (51.3 vs. 68.2%, p = 0.003). Conclusion: Compared to English-speaking participants, Spanish-speaking participants were significantly less likely to self-report being asked about e-cigarette use and advised not to use them. Moreover, Hispanic/Latino and female adolescents were significantly less likely to self-report being advised not to use e-cigarettes compared to their Black/African American and male counterparts. Future research is needed to improve health professional attention toward asking about and advising against vaping among adolescents.

Understanding Factors Associated with Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening among Individuals at High Risk.

Early detection using low-dose computed tomography scanning reduces lung cancer-specific mortality by 20% among high-risk individuals. Despite its efficacy, the uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) remains low. This study aimed to identify factors associated with the uptake of LCS in high-risk individuals. Data for this study were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n=11,297). Multivariable logistic regression models were used. Individuals with no health insurance (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.19-0.58), no primary health care provider (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.25-0.64), no chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.28- 0.49), and racial/ethnic minorities other than Black and Hispanic (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.78) were less likely to participate in annual LCS. Low-dose computed tomography uptake varied widely across the 24 U.S. states. The findings from this study have important implications for designing more effective interventions to target specific U.S. states and subgroups for the uptake of annual LCS.

Disparities Across the Continuum of Lung Cancer Care.

Despite the overall decline in lung cancer incidence and mortality, minority populations continue to bear a higher disease burden. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and disproportionately impacts minority populations. Social determinants of health-including low-socioeconomic status, lack of health insurance, and access to health care- disproportionately impact racial, ethnic, and rural populations resulting in direct consequences on lung cancer disparities.

Communication of Positive Lung Cancer Screening Findings and Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care.

This cohort study evaluates associations of communication methods and content of positive lung cancer screening findings with receipt of recommended follow-up care.

Acquiring tissue for advanced lung cancer diagnosis and comprehensive biomarker testing: A National Lung Cancer Roundtable best-practice guide.

Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios.

Cancer-related Fatigue in Lung Cancer: A Research Agenda: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Fatigue is the most common symptom among cancer survivors. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) may occur at any point in the cancer care continuum. Multiple factors contribute to CRF development and severity, including cancer type, treatments, presence of other symptoms, comorbidities, and medication side effects. Clinically, increasing physical activity, enhancing sleep quality, and recognizing sleep disorders are integral to managing CRF. Unfortunately, CRF is infrequently recognized, evaluated, or treated in lung cancer survivors despite more frequent and severe symptoms than in other cancers. Therefore, increased awareness and understanding of CRF are needed to improve health-related quality of life in lung cancer survivors. Objectives: 1) To identify and prioritize knowledge and research gaps and 2) to develop and prioritize research questions to evaluate mechanistic, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches to CRF among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary panel to review the available literature on CRF, focusing on the impacts of physical activity, rehabilitation, and sleep disturbances in lung cancer. We used a three-round modified Delphi process to prioritize research questions. Results: This statement identifies knowledge gaps in the 1) detection and diagnostic evaluation of CRF in lung cancer survivors; 2) timing, goals, and implementation of physical activity and rehabilitation; and 3) evaluation and treatment of sleep disturbances and disorders to reduce CRF. Finally, we present the panel's initial 32 research questions and seven final prioritized questions. Conclusions: This statement offers a prioritized research agenda to 1) advance clinical and research efforts and 2) increase awareness of CRF in lung cancer survivors.

Lung cancer with air lucency: a systematic review and clinical management guide.

Background: Lung cancers with air lucency are poorly understood, often recognized only after substantial progression. Methods: From a systematic review (PubMed and EMBASE, 2000-2022, terms related to cystic, cavitary, bulla, pseudocavitary, bubble-like, date 10-30-2022) 49 studies were selected using broad inclusion criteria (case series of ≥10 cases up to trials and reviews). There was no source of funding. Primary evidence relevant to clinical management issues was assembled. Because data was available only from heterogeneous retrospective case series, meta-analysis and formal risk-of-bias assessment was omitted. A framework was developed to guide clinical management based on the available data. Results: Demographic, smoking and histologic differences suggest that cystic, cavitary and bullous lung cancers with air lucency may be distinct entities; insufficient data leaves it unclear whether this also applies to pseudocavitary (solid) or bubble-like (ground glass) cancers. Annual observation of irregular thin-walled cysts is warranted; a surgical diagnosis (and resection) is justified once a solid component appears because subsequent progression is often rapid with markedly worse outcomes. Bubble-like ground glass lesions should be managed similarly. Cavitary lesions must be distinguished from infection or vasculitis, but generally require needle or surgical biopsy. Pseudocavitary lesions are less well studied; positron emission tomography may be useful in this setting to differentiate scar from malignancy. Further research is needed because these conclusions are based on interpretation of retrospective case series. Conclusions: The aggregate of available evidence suggests a framework for management of suspected lung cancers with air lucency. Greater awareness, earlier detection, and aggressive management once a solid component appears are needed. This review and framework should facilitate further research; questions include whether the suggested entities and proposed management are borne out and should involve clearly defined terms and outcomes related to progression and treatment. In summary, a conceptual understanding is emerging from interpretation of available data about a previously poorly understood topic; this should improve patient outcomes.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 2015 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial data. RESULTS: Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred. INTERPRETATION: This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer.

Understanding the Perspectives of Latino Adults Who Smoke on Physical Activity: A Qualitative Study.

Smoking and sedentary lifestyle frequently co-occur among Latinos. Evidence suggests that moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) may enhance smoking cessation rates. However, this synergistic phenomenon has not been studied among Latinos, the largest minority group in the United States. This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews in English or Spanish with Latino adults who smoke (n = 20) to understand their perspectives on physical activity. Participants were recruited using community-based recruitment strategies. The Health Belief Model was used as a framework for qualitative theoretical analysis. Multiple perceived benefits (e.g., mood management, strategy to quit smoking), susceptibility (e.g., risk of cardiovascular diseases, physical impairment), and barriers (e.g., lack of social support, low financial resources) of being physically active were identified. Moreover, multiple cues to action to do physical activity (e.g., being a role model, spending time with family and friends) were identified. These factors provide concrete operational strategies to address smoking cessation and physical activity among Latinos. Further research is needed on how best to integrate these perspectives into smoking cessation interventions.

Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care After a Positive Lung Cancer Screening Examination.

Importance: Maximizing benefits of lung cancer screening requires timely follow-up after a positive screening test. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommends testing and follow-up timing based on the screening result. Objective: To determine rates of and factors associated with recommended follow-up after a positive lung cancer screening examination by Lung-RADS category. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study of lung cancer screening examinations performed from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2020, with follow-up through July 31, 2021, was conducted at 5 academic and community lung cancer screening sites in North Carolina. Participants included 685 adults with a positive screening examination, Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Statistical analysis was performed from December 2020 to March 2022. Exposures: Individual age, race, sex, smoking exposure, year of lung cancer screening examination, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, referring clinician specialty, rural or urban residence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence, defined as receipt of recommended follow-up test or procedure after the positive screen per ACR Lung-RADS timeframes: 6 months for Lung-RADS 3 and 3 months for Lung-RADS 4A. For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, adherence was defined as follow-up care within 4 weeks, as ACR Lung-RADS does not specify a timeframe. Results: Among the 685 individuals included in this study who underwent lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, 416 (60.7%) were aged at least 65 years, 123 (18.0%) were Black, 562 (82.0%) were White, and 352 (51.4%) were male. Overall adherence to recommended follow-up was 42.6% (292 of 685) and varied by Lung-RADS category: Lung-RADS 3 = 30.0% (109 of 363), Lung-RADS 4A = 49.5% (96 of 194), Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 68.0% (87 of 128). Extending the follow-up time increased adherence: Lung-RADS 3 = 68.6% (249 of 363) within 9 months, Lung-RADS 4A = 77.3% (150 of 194) within 5 months, and Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 80.5% (103 of 128) within 62 days. For Lung-RADS 3, recommended follow-up was less likely among those currently smoking vs those who quit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78). In Lung-RADS 4A, recommended follow-up was less likely in Black individuals vs White individuals (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, recommended follow-up was more likely in female individuals vs male individuals (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.09-7.28) and less likely in those currently smoking vs those who quit (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adherence to recommended follow-up after a positive screening examination was low but improved among nodules with a higher suspicion of cancer and after extending the follow-up timeline. However, the association of extending the follow-up time of screen-detected nodules with outcomes at the population level, outside of a clinical trial, is unknown. These findings suggest that studies to understand why recommended follow-up is lower in Black individuals, male individuals, and individuals currently smoking are needed to develop strategies to improve adherence.