A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence. METHODS: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders. DISCUSSION: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings. REGISTRATION: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

Comparing Cannabis Use for Pain to Use for Other Reasons in Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis is commonly used for chronic pain, but little is known about differences in characteristics, cannabis use patterns, and perceived helpfulness among primary care patients who use cannabis for pain versus nonpain reasons. METHODS: Among 1688 patients who completed a 2019 cannabis survey administered in a health system in Washington state, where recreational use is legal, participants who used cannabis for pain (n = 375) were compared with those who used cannabis for other reasons (n = 558) using survey and electronic health record data. We described group differences in participant characteristics, use patterns, and perceptions and applied adjusted multinomial logistic and modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Participants who used cannabis for pain were significantly more likely to report using applied (50.7% vs 10.6%) and beverage cannabis products (19.2% vs 11.6%), more frequent use (47.1% vs 33.1% for use ≥2 times per day; 81.6% vs 69.7% for use 4 to 7 days per week), and smoking tobacco cigarettes (19.2% vs 12.2%) than those who used cannabis for other reasons. They were also significantly more likely to perceive cannabis as very/extremely helpful (80.5% vs 72.7%), and significantly less likely to use cannabis for nonmedical reasons (4.8% vs 58.8%) or report cannabis use disorder symptoms (51.7% vs 61.1%). DISCUSSION: Primary care patients who use cannabis for pain use it more frequently, often in applied and ingested forms, and have more co-use of tobacco, which may differentially impact safety and effectiveness. These findings suggest the need for different approaches to counseling in clinical care.

Quantifying cancer risk from exposures to medical imaging in the Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study: research methods and cohort profile.

PURPOSE: The Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study is quantifying the association between cumulative radiation exposure from fetal and/or childhood medical imaging and subsequent cancer risk. This manuscript describes the study cohorts and research methods. METHODS: The RIC Study is a longitudinal study of children in two retrospective cohorts from 6 U.S. healthcare systems and from Ontario, Canada over the period 1995-2017. The fetal-exposure cohort includes children whose mothers were enrolled in the healthcare system during their entire pregnancy and followed to age 20. The childhood-exposure cohort includes children born into the system and followed while continuously enrolled. Imaging utilization was determined using administrative data. Computed tomography (CT) parameters were collected to estimate individualized patient organ dosimetry. Organ dose libraries for average exposures were constructed for radiography, fluoroscopy, and angiography, while diagnostic radiopharmaceutical biokinetic models were applied to estimate organ doses received in nuclear medicine procedures. Cancers were ascertained from local and state/provincial cancer registry linkages. RESULTS: The fetal-exposure cohort includes 3,474,000 children among whom 6,606 cancers (2394 leukemias) were diagnosed over 37,659,582 person-years; 0.5% had in utero exposure to CT, 4.0% radiography, 0.5% fluoroscopy, 0.04% angiography, 0.2% nuclear medicine. The childhood-exposure cohort includes 3,724,632 children in whom 6,358 cancers (2,372 leukemias) were diagnosed over 36,190,027 person-years; 5.9% were exposed to CT, 61.1% radiography, 6.0% fluoroscopy, 0.4% angiography, 1.5% nuclear medicine. CONCLUSION: The RIC Study is poised to be the largest study addressing risk of childhood and adolescent cancer associated with ionizing radiation from medical imaging, estimated with individualized patient organ dosimetry.

Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening.

OBJECTIVE: Estimates of adherence to mammography screening guidelines vary, in part, due to lack of consensus on defining adherence. This study estimated adherence to repeat (two successive on-time screenings) and regular screening (three or more successive screenings) and evaluated the impact of varying operational definitions and evaluation periods. METHODS: The study included women aged 50-80 without a history of breast cancer who: were on a biennial screening cycle and due for a screening mammogram between 1995 and 1996; underwent screening (index date) in response to a reminder letter; and belonged to Group Health, an integrated health care delivery system in Washington State, for 6 or more years after the index date. Automated records provided information on enrollment, health care utilization, and procedures. RESULTS: Among 1336 women, 67-82% experienced a repeat screen. Adherence to regular screening over the 6-year evaluation period was 42-84%--and higher with longer allowable intervals between screenings, when definitions did not require on-schedule screenings, when intervals were reset after a diagnostic mammogram, and for shorter evaluation periods. CONCLUSION: Estimates of adherence to screening guidelines varied by the operational definition of "success" and time period of evaluation. Consensus in definitions and terminology is needed to compare evaluations.