Results of a pilot risk-based lung cancer screening study: outcomes and comparisons to a Medicare eligible cohort.

PURPOSE: Risk-based lung cancer screening holds potential to detect more cancers and avert more cancer deaths than screening based on age and smoking history alone, but has not been widely assessed or implemented in the United States. The purpose of this study was to prospectively identify patients for lung cancer screening based on lung cancer risk using the PLCOm2012 model and to compare characteristics, risk profiles, and screening outcomes to a traditionally eligible screening cohort. METHODS: Participants who had a 6 year lung cancer risk score ≥ 1.5% calculated by the PLCOm2012 model and were ineligible for screening under 2015 Medicare guidelines were recruited from a lung cancer screening clinic. After informed consent, participants completed shared decision-making counseling and underwent a low-dose CT (LDCT). Characteristics and screening outcomes of the study population were compared to the traditionally eligible Medicare cohort with Fisher's Exact, t-tests, or Brown Mood tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: From August 2016 to July 2019, the study completed 48 baseline LDCTs. 10% of LDCTs recommended further pulmonary nodule evaluation (Lung-RADs 3 or 4) with two early-stage lung cancers diagnosed in individuals that had quit smoking > 15 years prior. The study population was approximately 5 years older (p = 0.001) and had lower pack years (p = 0.002) than the Medicare cohort. CONCLUSION: Prospective application of risk-based screening identifies screening candidates who are similar to a traditionally eligible Medicare cohort and future research should focus on the impact of risk calculators on lung cancer outcomes and optimal usability in clinical environments. This study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03683940) on 09/25/2018.

Lung cancer survivors' views on telerehabilitation following curative intent therapy: a formative qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To inform personalised home-based rehabilitation interventions, we sought to gain in-depth understanding of lung cancer survivors' (1) attitudes and perceived self-efficacy towards telemedicine; (2) knowledge of the benefits of rehabilitation and exercise training; (3) perceived facilitators and preferences for telerehabilitation; and (4) health goals following curative intent therapy. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews guided by Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and used directed content analysis to identify salient themes. SETTING: One USA Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 20 stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors who completed curative intent therapy in the prior 1-6 months. Eighty-five percent of participants had prior experience with telemedicine, but none with telerehabilitation or rehabilitation for lung cancer. RESULTS: Participants viewed telemedicine as convenient, however impersonal and technologically challenging, with most reporting low self-efficacy in their ability to use technology. Most reported little to no knowledge of the potential benefits of specific exercise training regimens, including those directed towards reducing dyspnoea, fatigue or falls. If they were to design their own telerehabilitation programme, participants had a predominant preference for live and one-on-one interaction with a therapist, to enhance therapeutic relationship and ensure correct learning of the training techniques. Most participants had trouble stating their explicit health goals, with many having questions or concerns about their lung cancer status. Some wanted better control of symptoms and functional challenges or engage in healthful behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Features of telerehabilitation interventions for lung cancer survivors following curative intent therapy may need to include strategies to improve self-efficacy and skills with telemedicine. Education to improve knowledge of the benefits of rehabilitation and exercise training, with alignment to patient-formulated goals, may increase uptake. Exercise training with live and one-on-one therapist interaction may enhance learning, adherence, and completion. Future work should determine how to incorporate these features into telerehabilitation.

Differences in VA and Non-VA Pulmonary Nodules: All Evaluations Are not Created Equal.

BACKGROUND: Indeterminate pulmonary nodules present a common challenge for clinicians who must recommend surveillance or intervention based on an assessed risk of malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this cohort study, patients presenting for indeterminate pulmonary nodule evaluation were enrolled at sites participating in the Colorado SPORE in Lung Cancer. They were followed prospectively and included for analysis if they had a definitive malignant diagnosis, benign diagnosis, or radiographic resolution or stability of their nodule for > 2 years. RESULTS: Patients evaluated at the Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA sites were equally as likely to have a malignant diagnosis (48%). The VA cohort represented a higher-risk group than the non-VA cohort regarding smoking history and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There were more squamous cell carcinoma diagnoses among VA malignant nodules (25% vs. 10%) and a later stage at diagnosis among VA patients. Discrimination and calibration of risk calculators produced estimates that were wide-ranging and different when comparing between risk score calculators as well as between VA/non-VA cohorts. Application of current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines to our groups could have resulted in inappropriate resection of 12% of benign nodules. CONCLUSION: Comparison of VA with non-VA patients shows important differences in underlying risk, histology of malignant nodules, and stage at diagnosis. This study highlights the challenge in applying risk calculators to a clinical setting, as the model discrimination and calibration were variable between calculators and between our higher-risk VA and lower-risk non-VA groups. MICROABSTRACT: Risk stratification and management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) is a common clinical problem. In this prospective cohort study of 282 patients with IPNs from Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA sites, we found differences in patient and nodule characteristics, histology and diagnostic stage, and risk calculator performance. Our findings highlight challenges and shortcomings of current IPN management guidelines and tools.

Determinants Associated With Longitudinal Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Analysis of Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) efficacy is highly dependent on adherence to annual screening, but little is known about real-world adherence determinants. We used insurance claims data to examine associations between LCS annual adherence and demographic, comorbidity, health care usage, and geographic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Insurance claims data for all individuals with an LCS low-dose CT scan were obtained from the Colorado All Payer Claims Dataset. Adherence was defined as a second claim for a screening CT 10 to 18 months after the index claim. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to define the relationship between annual adherence and age, gender, insurance type, residence location, outpatient health care usage, and comorbidity burden. RESULTS: After exclusions, the final data set consisted of 9,056 records with 3,072 adherent, 3,570 nonadherent, and 2,414 censored (unclassifiable) individuals. Less adherence was associated with ages 55 to 59 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67-0.94), 60 to 64 (HR = 0.83, 99% CI = 0.71-0.97), and 75 to 79 (HR = 0.79, 99% CI = 0.65-0.97); rural residence (HR = 0.56, 99% CI = 0.43-0.73); Medicare fee-for-service (HR = 0.45, 99% CI = 0.39-0.51), and Medicaid (HR = 0.50, 99% CI = 0.40-0.62). A significant interaction between outpatient health care usage and comorbidity was also observed. Increased outpatient usage was associated with increased adherence and was most pronounced for individuals without comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based description of LCS adherence determinants provides insight into populations that might benefit from specific interventions targeted toward improving adherence and maximizing LCS benefit. Quantifying population-based adherence rates and understanding factors associated with annual adherence are critical to improving screening adherence and reducing lung cancer death.

Impact of a Hybrid Lung Cancer Screening Model on Patient Outcomes and Provider Behavior.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation is complicated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement requirements of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling. LCS programs can utilize different structures to meet these requirements, but the impact of programmatic structure on provider behavior and screening outcomes is poorly described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective chart review of 624 patients in a hybrid structure, academic LCS program, we compared characteristics and outcomes of primary care provider (PCP)- and specialist-screened patients. We also assessed the impact of the availability of an LCS specialty clinic and best practice advisory (BPA) on PCP ordering patterns using electronic medical record generated reports. RESULTS: During the study period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, 48% of patients were specialist-screened and 52% were PCP-screened; there were no clinically relevant differences in patient characteristics or screening outcomes between these populations. PCPs demonstrate distinct practice patterns when offered the choice of specialist-driven or PCP-driven screening. Increased exposure to a LCS BPA is associated with increased PCP screening orders. The addition of a nurse navigator into the LCS program increased documentation of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling to > 95% and virtually eliminated screening of ineligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic interventions including a BPA and nurse navigator are associated with increased screening and improved program quality, as evidenced by reduced screening of ineligible patients, increased lung cancer risk of the screened population, and improved compliance with LCS guidelines. Individual PCPs demonstrate clear preferences regarding LCS that should be considered in program design.

Prostacyclin and EMT Pathway Markers for Monitoring Response to Lung Cancer Chemoprevention.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and global burden could be reduced through targeted application of chemoprevention. The development of squamous lung carcinoma has been linked with persistent, high-grade bronchial dysplasia. Bronchial histology improved in former smokers in a chemoprevention trial with the prostacyclin analogue iloprost. Prostacyclin acts through peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) to reverse epithelial to mesenchymal transition and promote anticancer signaling. We hypothesized that the prostacyclin signaling pathway and EMT could provide response markers for prostacyclin chemoprevention of lung cancer. Human bronchial epithelial cells were treated with cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) or iloprost for 2 weeks, CSC for 16 weeks, or CSC for 4 weeks followed by 4 weeks of CSC and/or iloprost, and RNA was extracted. Wild-type or prostacyclin synthase transgenic mice were exposed to 1 week of cigarette smoke or one injection of urethane, and RNA was extracted from the lungs. We measured potential markers of prostacyclin and iloprost efficacy in these models. We identified a panel of markers altered by tobacco carcinogens and inversely affected by prostacyclin, including PPARγ, 15PGDH, CES1, COX-2, ECADHERIN, SNAIL, VIMENTIN, CRB3, MIR34c, and MIR221 These data introduce a panel of potential markers for monitoring interception of bronchial dysplasia progression during chemoprevention with prostacyclin. Chemoprevention is a promising approach to reduce lung cancer mortality in a high-risk population. Identifying markers for targeted use is critical for success in future clinical trials of prostacyclin for lung cancer chemoprevention. Cancer Prev Res; 11(10); 643-54. ©2018 AACR.

The Second-Generation PGI2 Analogue Treprostinil Fails to Chemoprevent Tumors in a Murine Lung Adenocarcinoma Model.

Prostacyclin (prostaglandin I2, PGI2) overproduction in FVB/N mice prevents the formation of carcinogen and tobacco smoke-induced adenomas, and administration of the oral prostacyclin analogue iloprost to wild-type mice also prevented carcinogen-induced mouse lung adenoma formation. Former smokers taking oral iloprost showed improved bronchial dysplasia histology compared with placebo. Next-generation oral prostacyclin analogues, like treprostinil, were developed for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). On the basis of our prior studies with iloprost, we performed preclinical studies examining the ability of treprostinil to chemoprevent urethane-induced murine lung adenocarcinoma. We determined the MTD in chow (prior studies had delivered treprostinil by gavage), and this dose produced serum levels in the experimental animals similar to those found in PAH patients treated with treprostinil. We then examined the chemopreventive efficacy of treprostinil exposure initiated both before (1 week) and after (6 weeks) urethane exposure to better model chemoprevention studies conducted in former smokers. Neither of these dosing strategies prevented murine lung cancer; however, we did detect changes in pulmonary inflammatory cell infiltrate and expression of CXCR4 (a chemokine receptor previously shown to increase in response to treprostinil exposure) in tumor-bearing, treprostinil-treated animals, indicating that the drug was bioavailable. One potential explanation stems from iloprost and treprostinil differentially activating cell surface prostaglandin receptors and intracellular peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors. When murine lung tumor cells were treated with treprostinil, their proliferation rate increased; in contrast, iloprost had no effect on proliferation. Future investigations comparing these two agents will provide insight into iloprost's chemopreventive mechanisms. Cancer Prev Res; 10(11); 671-9. ©2017 AACR.