An alternating-intervention pilot trial on the impact of an informational handout on patient-reported outcomes and follow-up after lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either: 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention). INTERVENTION: A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: 389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible component of a multi-level intervention to address knowledge and follow-up for LCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05265897.

Lung Cancer Screening in People With HIV: A Mixed-Methods Study of Patient and Provider Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: People with HIV are at higher risk of lung cancer; however, there is limited research on attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to lung cancer screening in people with HIV. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives on lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers. METHODS: Surveys of people with HIV and HIV-care providers were complemented by qualitative focus groups and interviews designed to understand the determinants of lung cancer screening in people with HIV. Participants were recruited through an academic HIV clinic in Seattle, WA. Qualitative guides were developed by integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases checklist. Themes that emerged from thematic analyses of qualitative data were compared with surveys in joint displays. All study components were conducted between 2021 and 2022. RESULTS: Sixty-four people with HIV completed surveys, and 43 participated in focus groups. Eleven providers completed surveys, and 10 were interviewed for the study. Themes from joint displays show overall enthusiasm for lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers, particularly with a tailored and evidence-based approach. Facilitators in this population may include longstanding engagement with providers and health systems and an emphasis on survivorship through preventive healthcare interventions. People with HIV may also face barriers acknowledged by providers, including a high level of medical comorbidities and competing issues such as substance abuse, mental health concerns, and economic instability. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that people with HIV and their providers have overall enthusiasm toward screening. However, tailored interventions may be needed to overcome specific barriers, including complex decision making in the setting of medical comorbidity and patient competing issues.

Delays in Recommended Follow-Up after Positive Findings in Lung Cancer Screening.

Rationale: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is an effective tool to reduce mortality. However, barriers along the LCS care continuum, including delay in follow-up care, may reduce effectiveness. Objectives: The primary goals of this study were to evaluate delays in follow-up in patients with positive findings on LCS and to examine the impact of delay on lung cancer staging. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in a multisite LCS program with positive LCS findings, defined as Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Time to first follow-up was evaluated with delay considered >30 days beyond the standardized Lung-RADS recommendation. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the likelihood of delay by Lung-RADS category. Participants with resultant non-small cell lung cancer were evaluated to determine if delay in follow-up was associated with clinical upstaging. Results: Three hundred sixty-nine patients with 434 examinations had positive findings; 16% of findings were ultimately diagnosed as lung cancer. In 47% of positive examinations, there was a delay in follow-up (median delay, 104 d), representing 59% (210 d) of Lung-RADS 3 examinations, 35% (64 d) of Lung-RADS 4A examinations, and 40% (34 d) of Lung-RADS 4B/4X examinations (P < 0.001). In the 54 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer through LCS, delay was associated with increased likelihood of clinical upstaging (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study of delay in follow-up after positive LCS findings, we found that nearly half of patients had delays in follow-up and that delay was associated with clinical upstaging in patients whose positive findings represented lung cancer. Further targeted interventions to ensure timely follow-up after positive LCS examination are critical.

Patient Identification of Lung Cancer Screening Follow-Up Recommendations and the Association with Adherence.

Rationale: Adherence to follow-up lung cancer screening (LCS) in real-world settings is suboptimal. Patient understanding of screening results and anticipated follow-up may be crucial to adherence. Objectives: To determine patient factors associated with identification of follow-up recommendations as a measure of patient understanding of screening results after LCS, and to determine whether misidentification of follow-up is associated with lower adherence to recommendations. Methods: We performed a prospective study of patients in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS registry who underwent an initial LCS examination between June 2017 and September 2019. We mailed potential participants a survey after the initial LCS examination, with additional data abstracted from the electronic health record and LCS registry. Participants were asked to identify the timing and next step for their follow-up, with answers corresponding to the lung imaging reporting and data system (Lung-RADS) recommendations. We examined associations between incorrect identification of recommended follow-up and patient-level characteristics, self-perceived benefit/harm of LCS, LCS knowledge, Lung-RADS score, and patient-reported method of LCS results communication (letter, telephone, or in-person). We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with incorrect identification of recommendations and assessed incorrect identification of recommendations as a potential mechanism for poor adherence in a separate regression model. Results: One hundred eighty-eight participants completed the survey (response rate 44%); 47% misidentified their follow-up recommendation. Those with Lung-RADS scores ⩾3 had higher odds of incorrectly identifying follow-up recommendations than those with scores <3, as did those with lower educational attainment. However, there was no significant association between incorrect identification of follow-up and ultimate adherence to follow-up. Conclusions: Understanding of LCS follow-up appears to be poor, especially among those with lower education levels and positive findings. Among survey responders, incorrect identification of follow-up was not associated with poor adherence, suggesting that other factors, such as provider interventions, may be driving adherence behavior. These results can inform efforts to target improved patient education regarding follow-up for LCS.