The TELEhealth Shared decision-making Coaching and Navigation in Primary carE (TELESCOPE) intervention: a study protocol for delivering shared decision-making for lung cancer screening by patient navigators.

Background Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality but has potential harms for patients. A shared decision-making (SDM) conversation about LCS is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for LCS reimbursement. To overcome barriers to SDM in primary care, this protocol describes a telehealth decision coaching intervention for LCS in primary care clinics delivered by patient navigators. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation potential, compared with an enhanced usual care (EUC) arm. Methods Patients (n = 420) of primary care clinicians (n = 120) are being recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinicians are randomly assigned to 1) TELESCOPE intervention: prior to an upcoming non-acute clinic visit, patients participate in a telehealth decision coaching session about LCS delivered by trained patient navigators and nurse navigators place a low-dose CT scan (LDCT) order for each TELESCOPE patient wanting LCS, or 2) EUC: patients receive enhanced usual care from a clinician. Usual care is enhanced by providing clinicians in both arms with access to a Continuing Medical Education (CME) webinar about LCS and an LCS discussion guide. Patients complete surveys at baseline and 1-week after the scheduled clinic visit to assess quality of the SDM process. Re-navigation is attempted with TELESCOPE patients who have not completed the LDCT within 3 months. One month before being due for an annual screening, TELESCOPE patients whose initial LCS showed low-risk findings are randomly assigned to receive a telehealth decision coaching booster session with a navigator or no booster. Electronic health records are abstracted at 6, 12 and 18 months after the initial decision coaching session (TELESCOPE) or clinic visit (EUC) to assess initial and annual LCS uptake, imaging results, follow-up testing for abnormal findings, cancer diagnoses, treatment, and tobacco treatment referrals. This study will evaluate factors that facilitate or interfere with program implementation using mixed methods. Discussion We will assess whether a decision coaching and patient navigation intervention can feasibly support high-quality SDM for LCS and guideline-concordant LCS uptake for patients in busy primary care practices serving diverse patient populations. Trial Registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05491213) on August 4, 2022.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Acceptability of Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Program Among Primary Care Providers.

Current lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines rely on age and smoking history. Despite its benefit, only 5%-15% of eligible patients receive LCS. Personalized screening strategies select individuals based on their lung cancer risk and may increase LCS's effectiveness. We assess current LCS practices and the acceptability of personalized LCS among primary care providers (PCP) in Texas. We surveyed 32,983 Texas-based PCPs on an existing network (Protocol 2019-1257; PI: Dr. Shete) and 300 attendees of the 2022 Texas Academy of Family Physicians (TAFP) conference. We analyzed the responses by subgroups of interest. Using nonparametric bootstrap, we derived an enriched dataset to develop logistic regression models to understand current LCS practices and acceptability of personalized LCS. Response rates were 0.3% (n = 91) and 15% (n = 60) for the 2019-1257 and TAFP surveys, respectively. Most (84%) respondents regularly assess LCS in their practice. Half of the respondents were interested in adopting personalized LCS. The majority (66%) of respondents expressed concerns regarding time availability with the personalized LCS. Most respondents would use biomarkers as an adjunct to assess eligibility (58%), or to help guide indeterminate clinical findings (63%). There is a need to enhance the engagement of Texas-based PCPs in LCS. Most of the respondents expressed interest in personalized LCS. Time availability was the main concern related to personalized LCS. Findings from this project highlight the need for better education of Texas-based PCPs on the benefits of LCS, and the development of efficient decision tools to ensure successful implementation of personalized LCS. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Personalized LCS facilitated by a risk model and/or a biomarker test is proposed as an alternative to existing programs. Acceptability of personalized approach among PCPs is unknown. The goal of this study is to assess the acceptability of personalized LCS among PCPs.

Implementing a Telehealth Shared Counseling and Decision-Making Visit for Lung Cancer Screening in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Background: Veterans suffer substantial morbidity and mortality from lung cancer. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce mortality. Guidelines recommend counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) to address the benefits and harms of screening and the importance of tobacco cessation before patients undergo screening. Observations: We implemented a centralized LCS program at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center with a nurse program coordinator (NPC)-led telephone visit. Our multidisciplinary team ensured that veterans referred from primary care met eligibility criteria, that LDCT results were correctly coded by radiology, and that pulmonary promptly evaluated abnormal LDCT. The NPC mailed a decision aid to the veteran and scheduled a SDM telephone visit. We surveyed veterans after the visit using validated measures to assess knowledge, decisional conflict, and quality of decision making. We conducted 105 SDM visits, and 91 veterans agreed to LDCT. Overall, 84% of veterans reported no decisional conflict, and 59% reported high-quality decision making. While most veterans correctly answered questions about the harms of radiation, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis, few knew when to stop screening, and most overestimated the benefit of screening and the predictive value of an abnormal scan. Tobacco cessation interventions were offered to 72 currently smoking veterans. Conclusions: We successfully implemented an LCS program that provides SDM and tobacco cessation support using a centralized telehealth model. While veterans were confident about screening decisions, knowledge testing indicated important deficits, and many did not engage meaningfully in SDM. Clinicians should frame the decision as patient centered at the time of referral, highlight the importance of SDM, and be able to provide adequate decision support.

Financial toxicity in cancer patients and subsequent risk of repeat acute care utilization.

Background: Acute care (AC) visits by cancer patients are costly sources of healthcare resources and can exert a financial burden of oncology care both for individuals with cancer and healthcare systems. We sought to identify whether cancer patients who reported more severe initial financial toxicity (FT) burdens shouldered excess risks for acute care utilization. Methods: In 225 adult patients who participated in the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) survey study of individuals receiving ambulatory cancer care between March and September 2019, we measured the baseline FT (a multidimensional score of 0-10 indicating the least to most severe global, material, and coping FT burdens). All AC visits, including emergency department (ED) and unplanned hospital admissions, within 1-year follow-up were identified. The association between the severity of FT and the total number of AC visits was tested using Poisson regression models. Results: A total of 18.6% (n = 42) of patients had any AC visit, comprising 64.3% hospital admissions and 35.7% ED visits. Global FT burden was associated with the risk of repeat AC visits within 1-year follow-up (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.07-1.29, P < 0.001 for every unit increase), even after adjusting for sociodemographic and disease covariates. When examining subdimensions of FT, the burden of depleted FT coping resources (coping FT) was strongly associated with the risk of repeat AC visits (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.15-1.40, P < 0.001) while material FT burden showed a trend toward association (RR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.99-1.15, P = 0.07). Conclusion: In this prospective study of acute oncology care utilization outcomes among adult cancer patients, FT was a predictor of a higher burden of acute care visits. Patients with severely depleted material and also practical and social coping resources were at particular risk for repeated visits. Future studies are needed to identify whether early FT screening and intervention efforts may help to mitigate urgent acute care utilization burdens.

Learning Needs of Patients with Cancer and a Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease Who Are Candidates to Receive Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disorders and cancer considering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) need to receive balanced information about the benefits and risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flare-ups of their autoimmune disease. To assess the learning needs of patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune disease regarding ICI treatment, we interviewed 29 patients with autoimmune disease and cancer from a comprehensive cancer center, of whom 20 had received ICI and 9 were candidates to receive ICI at a US Cancer Center. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2021 and January 2022. Interviewee's opinions and preferences about content and information delivery methods were collected. We recorded and transcribed interviews and analyzed them using thematic analysis. Half of the participants were female, and their median (SD) age was 62.9 (±10.9) years. The identified health information needs included the following: (1) information on irAEs and autoimmune disease flare-ups; (2) benefits of ICI; (3) ICI mechanism in the context of autoimmune disease; (4) management of flare-ups; (5) reasons for stopping or modifying cancer or autoimmune disease treatment; (6) likelihood of autoimmune disease progression or organ damage; and (7) lifestyle changes that could help avoid irAEs. Patients who had received ICI and those who had not yet received treatment reported similar needs, although patients who had received ICI had more questions about cancer treatment modifications. Patients also expressed the need to better understand when to contact their provider and how to share information with multiple providers. Most patients wanted to receive information in visual formats for review at home and at their own pace. Patients expressed interest in having educational tools to facilitate shared decision-making with their physicians, and they identified several areas of health information concerning therapy with ICI. They also highlighted the importance of communication among their various providers.

Pilot study of a Spanish language measure of financial toxicity in underserved Hispanic cancer patients with low English proficiency.

Background: Financial toxicity (FT) reflects multi-dimensional personal economic hardships borne by cancer patients. It is unknown whether measures of FT-to date derived largely from English-speakers-adequately capture economic experiences and financial hardships of medically underserved low English proficiency US Hispanic cancer patients. We piloted a Spanish language FT instrument in this population. Methods: We piloted a Spanish version of the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) FT measure using qualitative cognitive interviews and surveys in un-/under-insured or medically underserved, low English proficiency, Spanish-speaking Hispanics (UN-Spanish, n = 23) receiving ambulatory oncology care at a public healthcare safety net hospital in the Houston metropolitan area. Exploratory analyses compared ENRICh FT scores amongst the UN-Spanish group to: (1) un-/under-insured English-speaking Hispanics (UN-English, n = 23) from the same public facility and (2) insured English-speaking Hispanics (INS-English, n = 31) from an academic comprehensive cancer center. Multivariable logistic models compared the outcome of severe FT (score > 6). Results: UN-Spanish Hispanic participants reported high acceptability of the instrument (only 0% responded that the instrument was "very difficult to answer" and 4% that it was "very difficult to understand the questions"; 8% responded that it was "very difficult to remember resources used" and 8% that it was "very difficult to remember the burdens experienced"; and 4% responded that it was "very uncomfortable to respond"). Internal consistency of the FT measure was high (Cronbach's α = 0.906). In qualitative responses, UN-Spanish Hispanics frequently identified a total lack of credit, savings, or income and food insecurity as aspects contributing to FT. UN-Spanish and UN-English Hispanic patients were younger, had lower education and income, resided in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and had more advanced cancer vs. INS-English Hispanics. There was a higher likelihood of severe FT in UN-Spanish (OR = 2.73, 95% CI 0.77-9.70; p = 0.12) and UN-English (OR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.13-15.12; p = 0.03) vs. INS-English Hispanics. A higher likelihood of severely depleted FT coping resources occurred in UN-Spanish (OR = 4.00, 95% CI 1.07-14.92; p = 0.04) and UN-English (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 1.49-22.1; p = 0.01) vs. INS-English. The likelihood of FT did not differ between UN-Spanish and UN-English in both models (p = 0.59 and p = 0.62 respectively). Conclusion: In medically underserved, uninsured Hispanic patients with cancer, comprehensive Spanish-language FT assessment in low English proficiency participants was feasible, acceptable, and internally consistent. Future studies employing tailored FT assessment and intervention should encompass the key privations and hardships in this population.

Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening Among Eligible Adults in 4 US States in 2021.

This cross-sectional study estimates the prevalence of lung cancer screening among eligible adults in 2021 and examines factors associated with screening.

Physician Views on the Provision of Information on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy to Patients with Cancer and Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease: A Qualitative Study.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved cancer outcomes but can cause severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flares of autoimmune conditions in cancer patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. The objective of this study was to identify the information physicians perceived as most useful for these patients when discussing treatment initiation with ICIs. Twenty physicians at a cancer institution with experience in the treatment of irAEs were interviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to organize and interpret data. The physicians were 11 medical oncologists and 9 non-oncology specialists. The following themes were identified: (1) current methods used by physicians to provide information to patients and delivery options; (2) factors to make decisions about whether or not to start ICIs in patients who have cancer and pre-existing autoimmune conditions; (3) learning points for patients to understand; (4) preferences for the delivery of ICI information; and (5) barriers to the implementation of ICI information in clinics. Regarding points to discuss with patients, physicians agreed that the benefits of ICIs, the probability of irAEs, and risks of underlying autoimmune condition flares with the use of ICIs were most important. Non-oncologists were additionally concerned about how ICIs affect the autoimmune disease (e.g., impact on disease activity, need for changes in medications for the autoimmune disease, and monitoring of autoimmune conditions).

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening. METHODS: We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS. GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

The Impact of Within-Consultation and Preconsultation Decision Aids for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient Knowledge: Results of a Patient-Level Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of timing (either before or during initial consultation) on the effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) to support shared-decision-making in a minority-enriched sample of patients with localized prostate cancer using a patient-level randomized controlled trial design. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-randomized trial in urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, testing the effect of preconsultation and within-consultation DAs on patient knowledge elements deemed essential to make treatment decisions about localized prostate cancer, all measured immediately following the initial urology consultation using a 12-item Prostate Cancer Treatment Questionnaire (score range 0 [no questions correct] to 1 [all questions correct]), compared to usual care (no DAs). RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2018, 103 patients-including 16 Black/African American and 17 American Indian or Alaska Native men-were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 33) or usual care and a DA before (n = 37) or during (n = 33) the consultation. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, there were no statistically significant proportional score differences in patient knowledge between the preconsultation DA arm (0.06 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12, P = .1) or the within-consultation DA arm (0.04 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11, P = .3) and usual care. CONCLUSION: In this trial oversampling minority men with localized prostate cancer, DAs presented at different times relative to the specialist consultation showed no improvement in patient knowledge above usual care.

A multicenter study of clinical impact of variant of uncertain significance reclassification in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer susceptibility genes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical interpretation of genetic test results is complicated by variants of uncertain significance (VUS) that have an unknown impact on health but can be clarified through reclassification. There is little empirical evidence regarding VUS reclassification in oncology care settings, including the prevalence and outcomes of reclassification, and racial/ethnic differences. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of persons with and without a personal history of cancer carrying VUS (with or without an accompanying pathogenic or likely pathogenic [P/LP] variant) in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer predisposition genes seen at four cancer care settings (in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New Jersey) between 2013 and 2019. RESULTS: In 2715 individuals included in the study, 3261 VUS and 313 P/LP variants were reported; 8.1% of all individuals with VUS experienced reclassifications and rates varied significantly among cancer care settings from 4.81% to 20.19% (overall p < 0.001). Compared to their prevalence in the overall sample, reclassification rates for Black individuals were higher (13.6% vs. 19.0%), whereas the rates for Asian individuals were lower (6.3% vs. 3.5%) and rates for White and Hispanic individuals were proportional. Two-year prevalence of VUS reclassification remained steady between 2014 and 2019. Overall, 11.3% of all reclassified VUS resulted in clinically actionable findings and 4.6% subsequently changed individuals' clinical managements. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this large multisite study suggest that VUS reclassification alters clinical management, has implications for precision cancer prevention, and highlights the need for implementing practices and solutions for efficiently returning reinterpreted genetic test results.

Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening update on drivers of disparities in screening eligibility.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its recommendation to expand lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility and mitigate disparities. Although this increased the number of non-White individuals who are eligible for LCS, the update's impact on drivers of disparities is less clear. This analysis focuses on racial disparities among Black individuals because members of this group disproportionately share late-stage lung cancer diagnoses, despite typically having a lower intensity smoking history compared to non-Hispanic White individuals. METHODS: We used data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine the impact of the 2021 eligibility criteria on racial disparities by factors such as education, poverty, employment history, and insurance status. We also examined preventive care use and reasons for delaying medical care. RESULTS: When comparing Black individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals, our analyses show significant differences in who would be eligible for LCS: Those who do not have a high school diploma (28.7% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.002), are in poverty (26.2% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001), and have not worked in the past 12 months (66.5% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.009). Further, our analyses also show that more Black individuals delayed medical care due to not having transportation (11.1% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that despite increasing the number of Black individuals who are eligible for LCS, the 2021 USPSTF recommendation highlights ongoing socioeconomic disparities that need to be addressed to ensure equitable access.

A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effects of smoking cessation strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking rates among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exceed those in the general population. This study identified smoking cessation strategies used in patients with RA and synthesized data on their effects. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that reported effects of interventions for smoking cessation in patients with RA. We searched 5 electronic databases until March 2022. Screening, quality appraisal, and data collection were done independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: We included 18 studies reporting interventions for patients or providers: 14 evaluated strategies for patients (5 education on cardiovascular risk factors including smoking, 3 educational interventions on smoking cessation alone, 3 education with nicotine replacement and counseling, and 1 study each: education with nicotine replacement, counseling sessions alone, and a social marketing campaign). Smoking cessation rates ranged from 4% (95% CI: 2%-6%, 24 to 48 weeks) for cardiovascular risk education to 43% (95% CI: 21%-67%, 104 weeks) for counseling sessions alone. The pooled cessation rate for all interventions was 22% (95% CI: 8%-41%, 4 weeks to 104 weeks; 9 studies). Four interventions trained providers to ascertain smoking status and provide referrals for smoking cessation. The pooled rates of referrals to quit services increased from 5% in pre-implementation populations to 70% in post-implementation populations. CONCLUSION: Studies varied in patient characteristics, the interventions used, and their implementation structure. Only 3 studies were controlled clinical trials. Additional controlled studies are needed to determine best practices for smoking cessation for patients with RA.

Assessment of Uptake Appropriateness of Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening According to Patients Meeting Eligibility Criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used for lung cancer screening (LCS) among populations with various levels of compliance to the eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations and may represent suboptimal allocation of health care resources. Objective: To evaluate the appropriateness of CT LCS according to the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Participants included individuals who responded to the LCS module administered in 20 states and had valid answers to questions regarding screening and smoking history. Data were analyzed between October 2021 and August 2022. Exposures: Screening eligibility groups were categorized according to the USPSTF 2013 recommendations, and subgroups of individuals who underwent LCS were analyzed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included LCS among the screening-eligible population and the proportions of the screened populations according to compliance categories established from the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations. In addition, the association between respondents' characteristics and LCS was evaluated for the subgroup who were screened despite not meeting any of the 3 USPSTF screening criteria: age, pack-year, and years since quitting smoking. Results: A total of 96 097 respondents were identified for the full study cohort, and 2 subgroups were constructed: (1) 3374 respondents who reported having a CT or computerized axial tomography to check for lung cancer and (2) 33 809 respondents who did not meet any screening eligibility criteria. The proportion of participants who were under 50 years old was 53.1%; between 50 and 54, 9.1%; between 55 and 79, 33.8%; and over 80, 4.0%. A total of 51 536 (50.9%) of the participants were female. According to the USPSTF 2013 recommendation, 807 (12.8%) of the screening-eligible population underwent LCS. Among those who were screened, only 807 (20.9%) met all 3 screening eligibility criteria, whereas 538 (20.1%) failed to meet any criteria. Among respondents in subgroup 2, being of older age and having a history of stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, or diabetes were associated with higher likelihood of LCS. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of the BRFSS 2019 survey, the low uptake rate among screening-eligible patients undermined the goal of LCS of early detection. Suboptimal screening patterns could increase health system costs and add financial stress, psychological burden, and physical harms to low-risk patients, while failing to provide high-quality preventive services to individuals at high risk of lung cancer.

Patients' Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Background. For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC), adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has shown efficacy, but men are often reluctant to accept it because of its impact on quality of life. Methods. We conducted time tradeoffs (score of 1 = perfect health and 0 = death) and probability tradeoffs with patients aged 51 to 78 y who had received EBRT for IRPC within the past 2 y. Of 40 patients, 20 had received 6 mo of ADT and 20 had declined. Utility assessments explored 4 ADT-related side effects: hot flashes, fatigue, loss of libido/erectile dysfunction, and weight gain. Results. The most commonly reported "worst" treatment-related complication of ADT was fatigue (50% in both cohorts) followed by reduced libido/erectile dysfunction (40% in both cohorts). The utilities for fatigue were mean = 0.71 and median = 0.92 and for reduced libido/erectile dysfunction were mean = 0.81 and median = 0.92. Utilities did not differ significantly between cohorts. Assuming a 6-mo course of ADT, men reported being willing to trade 3 mo of life expectancy to avoid fatigue due to ADT and 1.8 mo to avoid sexual side effects. Patients in the ADT cohort were willing to accept the side effects of ADT in exchange for a mean 8% absolute increase in survival, whereas patients in the no ADT cohort required a 16% increase (P < 0.001). Conclusions. When considering treatment with ADT, men with IRPC identified fatigue and sexual dysfunction as the most bothersome side effects. Patients who declined ADT expected a larger survival benefit than those who opted for treatment. Both groups expected a survival benefit exceeding that shown by recent trials, suggesting some men may be selecting treatments inconsistent with their preferences. Highlights: This study demonstrates that prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy are reluctant to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) most commonly due to anticipated fatigue and loss of libido/erectile dysfunction.Men who had received ADT reported they would require an average 8% absolute increase in survival to tolerate its side effects, whereas those who declined ADT would require an average 16% increase.Required thresholds are well above the estimated absolute survival benefit for ADT demonstrated in recent clinical trials, suggesting an unmet need for improved patient education regarding the risks and benefits of ADT.

Ensuring High-Quality Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening.

This Viewpoint discusses the role of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration in emphasizing the importance of shared decision-making facilitated by trained individuals and the use of decision aids that meet minimal quality standards when counseling patients for lung cancer screening.

Short-form adaptive measure of financial toxicity from the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) study: Derivation using modern psychometric techniques.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate advanced psychometric properties of the 15-item Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) measure of financial toxicity for cancer patients. METHODS: We surveyed 515 cancer patients in the greater Houston metropolitan area using ENRICh from March 2019 to March 2020. We conducted a series of factor analyses alongside parametric and non-parametric item response theory (IRT) assessments using Mokken analysis and the graded response model (GRM). We utilized parameters derived from the GRM to run a simulated computerized adaptive test (CAT) assessment. RESULTS: Among participants, mean age was 58.49 years and 278 (54%) were female. The initial round factor analysis results suggested a one-factor scale structure. Negligible levels of differential item functioning (DIF) were evident between eight items. Three items were removed due to local interdependence (Q3>+0.4). The original 11-point numerical rating scale did not function well, and a new 3-point scoring system was implemented. The final 12-item ENRICh had acceptable fit to the GRM (p<0.001; TLI = 0.94; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.09; RMSR = 0.06) as well as good scalability and dimensionality. We observed high correlation between CAT version scores and the 12-item measure (r = 0.98). During CAT, items 2 (money you owe) and 4 (stress level about finances) were most frequently administered, followed by items 1 (money in savings) and 5 (ability to pay bills). Scores from these four items alone were strongly correlated with that of the 12-item ENRICh (r = 0.96). CONCLUSION: These CAT and 4-item versions provide options for quick screening in clinical practice and low-burden assessment in research.