Patient-Provider Discussion About Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Equitable Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Physician-patient discussions regarding lung cancer screening (LCS) are uncommon and its racial and ethnic disparities are under-investigated. We examined the racial and ethnic disparities in the trends and frequency of LCS discussion among the LCS-eligible United States (US) population. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2014 to 2020. LCS-eligible individuals were defined as adults aged 55 to 80 years old who have a current or former smoking history. We estimated the trends and frequency of LCS discussions and adjusted the probability of having an LCS discussion by racial and ethnic groups. RESULTS: Among 2136 LCS-eligible participants (representing 22.7 million US adults), 12.9% (95% CI, 10.9%-15%) reported discussing LCS with their providers in the past year. The frequency of LCS discussion was lowest among non-Hispanic White participants (12.3%, 95% CI, 9.9%-14.7%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups (14.1% in Hispanic to 15.3% in non-Hispanic Black). A significant increase over time was only observed among non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1% in 2014 to 22.1% in 2020; P = .05) and non-Hispanic Whites (8.5% in 2014 to 14% in 2020; P = .02). In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black participants (14.6%, 95% CI, 12.3%-16.7%) had a significantly higher probability of LCS discussion than non-Hispanic Whites (12.1%, 95% CI, 11.4%-12.7%). CONCLUSION: Patient-provider LCS discussion was uncommon in the LCS-eligible US population. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have LCS discussions than other racial and ethnic groups. There is a need for more research to clarify the discordance between LCS discussions and the actual screening uptake in this population.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment of guideline-recommended depression screening for patients with breast cancer in medical oncology: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Implementation of guideline-recommended depression screening in oncology presents numerous challenges. Implementation strategies that are responsive to local context may be critical elements of adoption and sustainment. We evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementation of a depression screening program for breast cancer patients in a community medical oncology setting as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we employed qualitative methods to evaluate clinician, administrator, and patient perceptions of the program using semi-structured interviews. We used a team-coding approach for the data; thematic development focused on barriers and facilitators to implementation using a grounded theory approach. The codebook was refined through open discussions of subjectivity and unintentional bias, coding, and memo applications (including emergent coding), and the hierarchical structure and relationships of themes. RESULTS: We conducted 20 interviews with 11 clinicians/administrators and 9 patients. Five major themes emerged: (1) gradual acceptance and support of the intervention and workflow; (2) compatibility with system and personal norms and goals; (3) reinforcement of the value of and need for adaptability; (4) self-efficacy within the nursing team; and (5) importance of identifying accountable front-line staff beyond leadership "champions." CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a high degree of acceptability and feasibility due to the selection of appropriate implementation strategies, alignment of norms and goals, and a high degree of workflow adaptability. These findings will be uniquely helpful in generating actionable, real-world knowledge to inform the design, implementation, and sustainment of guideline-recommended depression screening programs in oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02941614.

Emotional Distress, Anxiety, and General Health Status in Patients With Newly Identified Small Pulmonary Nodules: Results From the Watch the Spot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and emotional distress have not been studied in large, diverse samples of patients with pulmonary nodules. RESEARCH QUESTION: How common are anxiety and distress in patients with newly identified pulmonary nodules, and what factors are associated with these outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study surveyed participants in the Watch the Spot Trial, a large, pragmatic clinical trial of more vs less intensive strategies for radiographic surveillance of patients with small pulmonary nodules. The survey included validated instruments to measure patient-centered outcomes such as nodule-related emotional distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and anxiety (Six-Item State Anxiety Inventory) 6 to 8 weeks following nodule identification. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study arms following adjustment for potential confounders and clustering within enrollment site, while also examining a limited number of prespecified explanatory factors, including nodule size, mode of detection, type of ordering clinician, and lack of timely notification prior to contact by the study team. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 34,699 patients; 2,049 individuals completed the baseline survey (5.9%). Respondents and nonrespondents had similar demographic and nodule characteristics, although more respondents were non-Hispanic and White. Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated mild, moderate, or severe distress in 32.2%, 9.4%, and 7.2% of respondents, respectively, with no difference in scores between study arms. Following adjustment, greater emotional distress was associated with larger nodule size and lack of timely notification by a clinician; distress was also associated with younger age, female sex, ever smoking, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Anxiety was associated with lack of timely notification, ever smoking, and female sex. INTERPRETATION: Almost one-half of respondents experienced emotional distress 6 to 8 weeks following pulmonary nodule identification. Strategies are needed to mitigate the burden of distress, especially in younger, female, ever smoking, and minoritized patients, and those with larger nodules. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02623712; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Contemporary care patterns in the management of small renal masses.

OBJECTIVES: Incidental small renal masses (SRMs) now account for the majority of new diagnoses of renal cancers. Although there are established management guidelines, referral and management patterns can vary. We aimed to explore identification, practice patterns, and management of identified SRMs in an integrated health system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: We identified patients with a newly diagnosed SRM measuring 3 cm or less from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. These patients were flagged at the time of radiographic identification to ensure adequate notification of findings. Diagnostic modality, referral, and treatment patterns were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 519 patients with SRMs, 65% were found on abdominal CT and 22% on renal/abdominal ultrasounds. Within 6 months, 70% of patients consulted with a urologist. Initial management patterns were as follows: active surveillance (60%), partial/radical nephrectomy (18%), and ablation (4%). Among 312 patients on surveillance, 14% eventually received treatment. The majority of patients (69.4%) did not receive guideline-recommended chest imaging for initial staging. Urologist visit within 6 months of SRM diagnosis was associated with increased adherence to staging (P = .003) and subsequent surveillance imaging (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary analysis of an integrated health system's experience, referral to a urologist was associated with guideline-concordant staging and surveillance imaging. Frequent utilization of active surveillance with a low rate of progression to active treatment was noted in both groups. These findings shed light on care patterns upstream of urologic evaluation and support the need for clinical pathways to be implemented at the time of radiologic diagnosis.

Survival Differences by Comorbidity Burden among Patients with Stage I/II Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer after Thoracoscopic Resection.

We sought to compare overall survival (OS) by comorbidity burden among patients with stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received thoracoscopic resection. Utilizing data from the National Cancer Database, we conducted a survival analysis among patients aged 50+ with stage I/II NSCLC who received thoracoscopic resection between 2010 and 2017. The comorbidity burden was measured by the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, 0, 1, 2+). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare overall survival relative to the CCI (CCI of 0 as the referent). Subgroup analyses were conducted considering sex, age groups, days from diagnosis to surgery, facility type, laterality, and type of surgery. For this study, 61,760 patients were included, with a mean age of 69.1 years (SD: 8.5). Notably, 51.2% had a CCI of 0, 31.8% had a CCI of 1, and 17.0% had a CCI of 2+. Most participants were non-Hispanic White (87.5%), and 56.9% were female. We found that an increase in the CCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (CCI 1 vs. 0 aHR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.20-1.28; CCI 2+ vs. 0 aHR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.45-1.57; p-trend < 0.01). Our subgroup analysis according to sex suggested that the association between CCI and risk of death was stronger in women.

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.

Patient and Nodule Characteristics Associated With a Lung Cancer Diagnosis Among Individuals With Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are a common incidental finding on CT imaging. Few studies have described patient and nodule characteristics associated with a lung cancer diagnosis using a population-based cohort. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a relationship exist between patient and nodule characteristics and lung cancer among individuals with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules, and can this information be used to create exploratory lung cancer prediction models with reasonable performance characteristics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults older than 18 years with lung nodules of any size incidentally detected by chest CT imaging between 2005 and 2015. All patients had at least 2 years of complete follow-up. To evaluate the relationship between patient and nodule characteristics and lung cancer, we used binomial regression. We used logistic regression to create prediction models, and we internally validated model performance using bootstrap optimism correction. RESULTS: Among 7,240 patients with a median age of 67 years, 56% of whom were women, with a median BMI of 28 kg/m2, 56% of whom were ever smokers, 31% of whom had prior nonlung malignancy, with a median nodule size 5.6 mm, 57% of whom had multiple nodules, and 40% of whom had an upper lobe nodule, 265 patients (3.7%; 95% CI, 3.2%-4.1%) had a diagnosis of lung cancer. In a multivariate analysis, age, sex, BMI, smoking history, and nodule size and location were associated with a lung cancer diagnosis, whereas prior malignancy and nodule number and laterality were not. We were able to construct two prediction models with an area under the curve value of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) and reasonable calibration. INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer is uncommon among individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules. Some, but not all, previously identified factors associated with lung cancer also were associated with this outcome in this sample. These findings may have implications for clinical practice, future practice guidelines, and the development of novel lung cancer prediction models for individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules.

A study protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial for comparing strategies for implementing primary HPV testing for routine cervical cancer screening in a large health care system.

BACKGROUND: Limited guidance exists regarding implementation strategies that best facilitate cancer screening practice substitution and achieve optimal stakeholder-centered outcomes. Here we describe the protocol for a randomized pragmatic trial comparing two implementation strategies to facilitate substitution of primary HPV screening for Pap and HPV co-testing to perform routine cervical cancer screening of women aged 30-65 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC). METHODS: Twelve service areas within KPSC will be randomized to a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation + local-tailored implementation" strategy or a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation only" strategy. The centrally-administered strategy comprises clinician and staff educational activities. Sites in the local-tailored arm will then conduct a structured local needs assessment followed by site-specific selection and deployment of implementation interventions. Surveys and interviews will be conducted among women and providers from the primary care and ob/gyn departments prior to the system-wide transition, shortly after the transition, and after the completion of local-tailored interventions. A stakeholder advisory committee will assist with study design, defining stakeholder-centered outcomes, and developing data collection tools. RESULTS: The primary outcome of interest is uptake of primary HPV screening. Secondary provider-centered outcomes include provider knowledge, delivery of patient education, satisfaction with the practice substitution process, and resistance to primary HPV screening. Secondary patient-centered outcomes include patient knowledge, stigma, and satisfaction with the screening process. Intervention fidelity will also be measured via surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help inform future use of a local-tailored implementation strategy for adopting primary HPV screening at large health care systems. Findings may also be applicable to other types of practice substitution.

The benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with major comorbidities: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated a survival benefit for adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy after resection of locoregional non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The relative benefits and harms and optimal approach to treatment for NSCLC patients who have major comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], coronary artery disease [CAD], and congestive heart failure [CHF]) are unclear, however. METHODS: We used a simulation model to run in-silico comparative trials of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in locoregional NSCLC in patients with comorbidities. The model estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by each treatment strategy stratified by age, comorbidity, and stage. The model was parameterized using outcomes and quality-of-life data from RCTs and primary analyses from large cancer databases. RESULTS: Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with clinically significant QALY gains for all patient age/stage combinations with COPD except for patients >80 years old with Stage IB and IIA cancers. For patients with CHF and Stage IB and IIA disease, adjuvant chemotherapy was not advantageous; in contrast, it was associated with QALY gains for more advanced stages for younger patients with CHF. For stages IIB and IIIA NSCLC, most patient groups benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, In general, patients with multiple comorbidities benefited less from adjuvant chemotherapy than those with single comorbidities and women with comorbidities in older age categories benefited more from adjuvant chemotherapy than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid patients may derive QALY gains from adjuvant chemotherapy after NSCLC surgery. These results help extend existing clinical trial data to specific unstudied, high-risk populations and may reduce the uncertainty regarding adjuvant chemotherapy use in these patients.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. OBJECTIVE: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: United States, 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT. RESULTS: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Fleischner Society Guideline Recommendations for Incidentally Detected Pulmonary Nodules and the Probability of Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Fleischner Society aims to limit further evaluations of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules when the probability of lung cancer is <1% and to pursue further evaluations when the probability of lung cancer is ≥1%. To evaluate the internal consistency of guideline goals and recommendations, the authors evaluated stratum-specific recommendations and 2-year probabilities of lung cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study (2005-2015) was conducted of individuals enrolled in one of two integrated health systems with solid nodules incidentally detected on CT. The 2017 Fleischner Society guidelines were used to define strata on the basis of smoking status and nodule size and number. Lung cancer diagnoses within 2 years of nodule detection were ascertained using cancer registry data. Confidence interval (CI) inspection was used to determine if stratum-specific probabilities of lung cancer were different than 1%. RESULTS: Among 5,444 individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules (median age, 66 years; 54% women; 57% smoked; median nodule size, 5.5 mm; 55% with multiple nodules), 214 (3.9%; 95% CI, 3.4%-4.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 2 years. For 7 of 12 strata (58%), 2,765 patients (51%), and 194 lung cancer cases (91%), there was alignment between Fleischner Society goals and recommendations. Alignment was indeterminate for 5 strata (42%), 2,679 patients (49%), and 20 lung cancer cases (9%) because CIs for the probability of lung cancer spanned 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Fleischner Society guideline goals and recommendations align at least half the time. It is uncertain whether alignment of guideline goals and recommendations occurs more often.

Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study to assess the importance of coexisting chronic conditions to clinical practice and policy: protocol for a multicentre observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA and worldwide, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to improve lung cancer outcomes. A critical question is whether the ratio of potential benefits to harms found in prior LCS trials applies to an older and potentially sicker population. The Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study will help close this knowledge gap by leveraging real-world data to fully characterise LCS recipients. The principal goal of the PLuS study is to characterise the comorbidity burden of individuals undergoing LCS and quantify the benefits and harms of LCS to enable informed decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PLuS is a multicentre observational study designed to assemble an LCS cohort from the electronic health records of ~40 000 individuals undergoing annual LCS with LDCT from 2016 to 2022. Data will be integrated into a unified repository to (1) examine the burden of multimorbidity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age; (2) quantify potential benefits and harms; and (3) use the observational data with validated simulation models in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to provide LCS outcomes in the real-world US population. We will fit a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted ORs of comorbidity, functional limitations and impaired pulmonary function adjusted for relevant covariates. We will also estimate the cumulative risk of LCS outcomes using discrete-time survival models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine observational data and simulation models to estimate the long-term impact of LCS with LDCT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board and VA Portland Health Care System. The results will be disseminated through publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Safety considerations include protection of patient confidentiality.

Assessment of treatment strategies for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in patients with comorbidities.

INTRODUCTION: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients frequently have major comorbidities but there is scarce data regarding the impact of these conditions on management strategies. We used simulation modeling to compare different treatments for stage I NSCLC for patients with common major comorbidities. METHODS: We used data on NSCLC patinet outcomes and quality of life from: (1) the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked to Medicare claims; (2) Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health records; and (3) SEER-Medical Health Outcomes Survey to parameterize a novel simulation model of management and outcomes for stage I NSCLC. Relative efficacy of treatment modalities (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge resection and stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) was collected from existing literature and combined using evidence synthesis methods. We then simulated multiple randomized trials comparing these treatments in a variety of scenarios, estimating quality adjusted life expectancy (QALE) according to age, tumor size, histologic subtype, and comorbidity status. RESULTS: Lobectomy and segmentectomy yielded the greatest QALE gains among all simulated age, tumor size and comorbidity groups. Optimal treatment strategies differed by patient sex and age; wedge resection was among the optimal strategies for women aged 80-84 with tumors 0-2 cm in size. SBRT was included in some optimal strategies for patients aged 80-84 with multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated comparative trials of four common treatments for stage I NSCLC, aggressive surgical management was typically associated with the greatest projected QALE gains despite the presence of comorbidities, although less aggressive strategies were predicted to be non-inferior in some older comorbid patient groups.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.