Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 U.S. health care systems. PATIENTS: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). LIMITATION: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening CT After a Provider Order for Screening in the PROSPR-Lung Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)-Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs.

Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in the United States recommend LCS for those age 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. We tested the performance of simple smoking-related criteria derived from electronic health record (EHR) data and developed and tested the performance of a multivariable model in predicting LCS eligibility. METHODS: Analyses were completed within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). In our primary validity analyses, the reference standard LCS eligibility was based on self-reported smoking data collected via survey. Within one PROSPR-Lung health system, we used a training data set and penalized multivariable logistic regression using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to select EHR-based variables into the prediction model including demographics, smoking history, diagnoses, and prescription medications. A separate test data set assessed model performance. We also conducted external validation analysis in a separate health system and reported AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy metrics associated with the Youden Index. RESULTS: There were 14,214 individuals with survey data to assess LCS eligibility in primary analyses. The overall performance for assigning LCS eligibility status as measured by the AUC values at the two health systems was 0.940 and 0.938. At the Youden Index cutoff value, performance metrics were as follows: accuracy, 0.855 and 0.895; sensitivity, 0.886 and 0.920; specificity, 0.896 and 0.850; PPV, 0.357 and 0.444; and NPV, 0.988 and 0.992. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that health systems can use an EHR-derived multivariable prediction model to aid in the identification of those who may be eligible for LCS.

Incidence and Survival for Patients Diagnosed With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer in an Integrated System.

INTRODUCTION: Documenting trends in cancer incidence and survival is a national priority. This study estimated age- and sex-adjusted incidence and 5-year relative survival among patients with cancer diagnosed within Kaiser Permanente compared to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) estimates. METHODS: The cohort included Kaiser Permanente health plan members diagnosed with breast (BC), colorectal (CRC), or lung cancer (LC) between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018. Incidence was computed as age-adjusted rates per 100,000 member-years. SEER*Stat was used to compute 5-year relative survival. RESULTS: Kaiser Permanente BC incidence rates were persistently higher than SEER from 2004 (126.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 123.2-129.9] vs 122.6 [95% CI = 121.3-123.2]) through 2013 (132.06 [95% CI = 129.5-135.7] vs 126.7 [95% CI = 125.9-127.5]). Kaiser Permanente CRC and LC incidence rates were lower than SEER for all years except 2008, showing a spike in CRC incidence (51.5 [95% CI = 49.9-53.0] vs 46.1 [95% CI = 45.7-46.4]). Kaiser Permanente BC, CRC, and LC survival estimates for all stages were higher than SEER. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence rates for all-stage and localized-stage BC were consistently higher for Kaiser Permanente than for SEER. CRC and LC rates were lower. Kaiser Permanente survival rates were consistently higher than for SEER. The strengths of these findings are associated with the ability to capture "gold-standard" cancer registry data on defined Kaiser Permanente populations. However, findings should be interpreted cautiously given differences in the underlying populations and secular and regional differences between Kaiser Permanente and SEER. The Kaiser Permanente population is younger and more racially diverse than SEER aggregate populations, and Kaiser Permanente members are insured with access to preventive care (eg, smoking cessation programs, cancer screening).

Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening Less Likely to Receive Screening When Enrolled in Health Plans With Deductibles.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and commercial insurance plans began covering lung cancer screening (LCS) without patient cost-sharing for all plans. We explore the impact of enrolling into a deductible plan on the utilization of LCS services despite having no out-of-pocket cost requirement. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium. Our cohort included non-Medicare LCS-eligible individuals enrolled in managed care organizations between February 5, 2015, and February 28, 2019. We estimate a series of sequential logistic regression models examining utilization across the sequence of events required for baseline LCS. We report the marginal effects of enrollment into deductible plans compared with enrollment in no-deductible plans. RESULTS: The total effect of deductible plan enrollment was a 1.8 percentage-point (PP) decrease in baseline LCS. Sequential logistic regression results that explore each transition separately indicate deductible plan enrollment was associated with a 4.3 PP decrease in receipt of clinician visit, a 1.7 PP decrease in receipt of LCS order, and a 7.0 PP decrease in receipt of baseline LCS. Reductions persisted across all observable races and ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest individuals enrolled in deductible plans are more likely to forgo preventive LCS services despite requiring no out-of-pocket costs. This result may indicate that increased cost-sharing is associated with suboptimal choices to forgo recommended LCS. Alternatively, this effect may indicate individuals enrolling into deductible plans prefer less health care utilization. Patient outreach interventions at the health plan level may improve LCS.

Application of team science best practices to the project management of a large, multi-site lung cancer screening research consortium.

Research is increasingly conducted through multi-institutional consortia, and best practices for establishing multi-site research collaborations must be employed to ensure efficient, effective, and productive translational research teams. In this manuscript, we describe how the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Center (PROSPR-Lung) utilized evidence-based Science of Team Science (SciTS) best practices to establish the consortium's infrastructure and processes to promote translational research in lung cancer screening. We provide specific, actionable examples of how we: (1) developed and reinforced a shared mission, vision, and goals; (2) maintained a transparent and representative leadership structure; (3) employed strong research support systems; (4) provided efficient and effective data management; (5) promoted interdisciplinary conversations; and (6) built a culture of trust. We offer guidance for managing a multi-site research center and data repository that may be applied to a variety of settings. Finally, we detail specific project management tools and processes used to drive collaboration, efficiency, and scientific productivity.

Uptake of novel systemic therapy: Real world patterns among adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based chemotherapy to immunotherapy and targeted therapies associated with improved survival in clinical trials. As new therapies are approved for use, examining variations in use for treating patients in community practice can generate additional evidence as to the magnitude of their benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1,442 patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV NSCLC between 3/1/2012 and 12/31/2020. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns are described overall and by type of first- and second-line systemic therapy received. Prevalence ratios estimate the association of patient and tumor characteristics with receipt of first-line therapy. RESULTS: Within 180 days of diagnosis, 949 (66%) patients received first-line systemic therapy, increasing from 53% in 2012 to 71% in 2020 (p = 0.0004). The proportion of patients receiving first-line immunotherapy+/-chemotherapy (IMO) increased from 14%-66% (p<0.0001). Overall, 380 (26%) patients received both first- and second-line treatment, varying by year between 16%-36% (p = 0.18). The proportion of patients receiving second-line IMO increased from 13%-37% (p<0.0001). Older age and current smoking status were inversely associated with receipt of first-line therapy. Higher BMI, receipt of radiation, and diagnosis year were positively associated with receipt of first-line therapy. No association was found for race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: The proportion of advanced NSCLC patients receiving first- and second-line treatment increased over time, particularly for IMO treatments. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of these therapies on patient outcomes, including short-term, long-term, and financial toxicities. MICROABSTRACT: Systemic treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based therapies to immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Using de novo stage IV NSCLC patients identified from 4 healthcare systems, we examine trends in systemic therapy. We saw an increase in the portion of patients receiving any systemic therapy and a sharp increase in the proportion of patients receiving immunotherapy.

Smoking status and the association between patient-level factors and survival among lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking, advances in targeted therapies, and implementation of lung cancer screening have changed the clinical landscape for lung cancer. The proportion of lung cancer deaths is increasing in those who have never smoked cigarettes. To better understand contemporary patterns in survival among patients with lung cancer, a comprehensive evaluation of factors associated with survival, including differential associations by smoking status, is needed. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2019, were identified. We estimated all-cause and lung cancer-specific median, 5-year, and multivariable restricted mean survival time (RMST) to identify demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors associated with survival, overall and stratified by smoking status (never, former, and current). RESULTS: Analyses included 6813 patients with lung cancer: 13.9% never smoked, 54.2% formerly smoked, and 31.9% currently smoked. All-cause RMST through 5 years for those who never, formerly, and currently smoked was 32.1, 25.9, and 23.3 months, respectively. Lung cancer-specific RMST was 36.3 months, 30.3 months, and 26.0 months, respectively. Across most models, female sex, younger age, higher socioeconomic measures, first-course surgery, histology, and body mass index were positively associated, and higher stage was inversely associated with survival. Relative to White patients, Black patients had increased survival among those who formerly smoked. CONCLUSIONS: We identify actionable factors associated with survival between those who never, formerly, and currently smoked cigarettes. These findings illuminate opportunities to address underlying mechanisms driving lung cancer progression, including use of first-course treatment, and enhanced implementation of tailored smoking cessation interventions for individuals diagnosed with cancer.

The Pathways to Prevention program: nutrition as prevention for improved cancer outcomes.

Adequate nutrition is central to well-being and health and can enhance recovery during illness. Although it is well known that malnutrition, both undernutrition and overnutrition, poses an added challenge for patients with cancer diagnoses, it remains unclear when and how to intervene and if such nutritional interventions improve clinical outcomes. In July 2022, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop to examine key questions, identify related knowledge gaps, and provide recommendations to advance understanding about the effects of nutritional interventions. Evidence presented at the workshop found substantial heterogeneity among published randomized clinical trials, with a majority rated as low quality and yielding mostly inconsistent results. Other research cited trials in limited populations that showed potential for nutritional interventions to reduce the adverse effects associated with malnutrition in people with cancer. After review of the relevant literature and expert presentations, an independent expert panel recommends baseline screening for malnutrition risk using a validated instrument following cancer diagnosis and repeated screening during and after treatment to monitor nutritional well-being. Those at risk of malnutrition should be referred to registered dietitians for more in-depth nutritional assessment and intervention. The panel emphasizes the need for further rigorous, well-defined nutritional intervention studies to evaluate the effects on symptoms and cancer-specific outcomes as well as effects of intentional weight loss before or during treatment in people with overweight or obesity. Finally, although data on intervention effectiveness are needed first, robust data collection during trials is recommended to assess cost-effectiveness and inform coverage and implementation decisions.

Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. RESULTS: We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139.

Percentage Up to Date With Chest Computed Tomography Among Those Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Authors aimed to calculate the percentage up-to-date with testing in the context of lung cancer screening across 5 healthcare systems and evaluate differences according to patient and health system characteristics. METHODS: Lung cancer screening‒eligible individuals receiving care within the five systems in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung consortium from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 were included in analyses. Data collection was completed on June 15, 2021; final analyses were completed on April 1, 2022. Chest computed tomography scans and patient characteristics were obtained through electronic health records and used to calculate the percentage completing a chest computed tomography scan in the previous 12 months (considered up-to-date). The association of patient and healthcare system factors with being up-to-date was evaluated with adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% CIs using log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: There were 29,417 individuals eligible for lung cancer screening as of September 30, 2019; 8,333 (28.3%) were up-to-date with testing. Those aged 65-74 years (prevalence ratio=1.19; CI=1.15, 1.24, versus ages 55-64), those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (prevalence ratio=2.05; CI=1.98, 2.13), and those in higher SES census tracts (prevalence ratio=1.22; CI=1.16, 1.30, highest quintile versus lowest) were more likely to be up-to-date. Currently smoking (prevalence ratio=0.91; CI=0.88, 0.95), having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (prevalence ratio=0.83; CI=0.77, 0.88), identifying as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (prevalence ratio=0.79; CI=0.68, 0.92), and having a decentralized lung cancer screening program (prevalence ratio=0.77; CI=0.74, 0.80) were inversely associated with being up-to-date. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage up-to-date with testing among those eligible for lung cancer screening is well below up-to-date estimates for other types of cancer screening, and disparities in lung cancer screening participation remain.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Stage Migration and Lung Cancer Incidence After Initiation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence from clinical trials of favorable shifts in cancer stage and improvements in lung cancer-specific mortality, the effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) in clinical practice has not been clearly revealed. METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of patients diagnosed with a primary lung cancer between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2019, at one of four U.S. health care systems. The primary outcome variables were cancer stage distribution and annual age-adjusted lung cancer incidence. The primary exposure variable was receipt of at least one low-dose computed tomography for LCS before cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 3678 individuals were diagnosed with an incident lung cancer during the study period; 404 (11%) of these patients were diagnosed after initiation of LCS. As screening volume increased, the proportion of patients diagnosed with lung cancer after LCS initiation also rose from 0% in the first quartile of 2014 to 20% in the third quartile of 2019. LCS did not result in a significant change in the overall incidence of lung cancer (average annual percentage change [AAPC]: -0.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): -4.7 to 3.2]) between 2014 and 2018. Stage-specific incidence rates increased for stage I cancer (AAPC = 8.0 [95% CI: 0.8-15.7]) and declined for stage IV disease (AAPC = -6.0 [95% CI: -11.2 to -0.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of LCS at four diverse health care systems has resulted in a favorable shift to a higher incidence of stage I cancer with an associated decline in stage IV disease. Overall lung cancer incidence did not increase, suggesting a limited impact of overdiagnosis.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Health Economics Research in Cancer Screening: Research Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Cancer screening has long been considered a worthy public health investment. Health economics offers the theoretical foundation and research methodology to understand the demand- and supply-side factors associated with screening and evaluate screening-related policies and interventions. This article provides an overview of health economic theories and methods related to cancer screening and discusses opportunities for future research. We review 2 academic disciplines most relevant to health economics research in cancer screening: applied microeconomics and decision science. We consider 3 emerging topics: cancer screening policies in national as well as local contexts, "choosing wisely" screening practices, and targeted screening efforts for vulnerable subpopulations. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of available data sources and opportunities for methodological research and training. Recommendations to strengthen research infrastructure include developing novel data linkage strategies, increasing access to electronic health records, establishing curriculum and training programs, promoting multidisciplinary collaborations, and enhancing research funding opportunities.

Cancer Survivorship and Supportive Care Economics Research: Current Challenges and Next Steps.

BACKGROUND: Rapid growth in the number of cancer survivors raises numerous questions about health and economic outcomes among survivors along with their families, caregivers, and employers. Health economics theory and methods can contribute to many open questions to improve survivorship. METHODS: In this paper, we review key areas where more research is needed and describe strategies for improving data infrastructure, research funding, and capacity building to strengthen survivorship health economics research. CONCLUSIONS: Health economics has broadened an understanding of key supply- and demand-side factors that promote cancer survivorship. To ensure necessary research in survivorship health economics moving forward, we recommend dedicated funding, inclusion of health economics outcomes in primary data collection, and investments in secondary data sets.

Using economic evaluations in implementation science to increase transparency in costs and outcomes for organizational decision-makers.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations frequently are utilized to compare the value of different interventions in medicine and health in concrete terms. Implementation science also would benefit from the incorporation of economic evaluations, but such studies are rare in the literature. The National Cancer Institute has supported a special collection of articles focusing on economic evaluations in implementation science. Even when interventions are supported by substantial evidence, they are implemented infrequently in the field. Implementation costs are important determinants for whether organizational decision-makers choose to adopt an intervention and whether the implementation process is successful. Economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses, can help organizational decision-makers choose between implementation approaches for evidence-based interventions by accounting for costs and succinctly presenting cost/benefit tradeoffs. MAIN TEXT: This manuscript presents a discussion of important considerations for incorporating economic evaluations into implementation science. First, the distinction between intervention and implementation costs is presented, along with an explanation of why the comprehensive representation of implementation costs is elusive. Then, the manuscript describes how economic evaluations in implementation science may differ from those in medicine and health intervention studies, especially in terms of determining the perspectives and outcomes of interest. Finally, referencing a scale-up trial of an evidence-based behavioral health intervention, concrete case examples of how cost data can be collected and used in economic evaluations targeting implementation, rather than clinical outcomes, are described. CONCLUSIONS: By gaining a greater understanding of the costs and economic impact associated with different implementation approaches, organizational decision-makers will have better transparency for future replication and scale-up. The use of economic evaluations can help to advance this understanding and provide researchers, purveyors or third-party intermediaries, and organizational decision-makers with essential information to facilitate implementation.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-Up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Rationale: Black patients receive recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up care less frequently than White patients, but it is unknown if this racial disparity persists across both decentralized and centralized LCS programs. Objectives: To determine adherence to American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations among individuals undergoing LCS at either decentralized or centralized programs and to evaluate the association of race with LCS adherence. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients receiving LCS at five heterogeneous U.S. healthcare systems. We calculated adherence to annual LCS among patients with a negative baseline screen (Lung-RADS 1 or 2) and recommended follow-up care among those with a positive baseline screen (Lung-RADS 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) stratified by type of LCS program and evaluated the association between race and adherence using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Results: Of the 6,134 total individuals receiving LCS, 5,142 (83.8%) had negative baseline screens, and 992 (16.2%) had positive baseline screens. Adherence to both annual LCS (34.8% vs. 76.1%; P < 0.001) and recommended follow-up care (63.9% vs. 74.6%; P < 0.001) was lower at decentralized compared with centralized programs. Among individuals with negative baseline screens, a racial disparity in adherence was observed only at decentralized screening programs (interaction term, P < 0.001). At decentralized programs, Black race was associated with 27% reduced adherence to annual LCS (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.84), whereas at centralized programs, no effect by race was observed (aRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In contrast, among those with positive baseline screens, there was no significant difference by race for adherence to recommended follow-up care by type of LCS program (decentralized aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; centralized aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; interaction term, P = 0.176). Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of individuals screened for lung cancer, adherence to both annual LCS and recommended follow-up care was greater at centralized screening programs. Black patients were less likely to receive annual LCS than White patients at decentralized compared with centralized LCS programs. Our results highlight the need for further study of healthcare system-level mechanisms to optimize longitudinal LCS care.