Contextualizing the Role of Volumetric Analysis in Pulmonary Nodule Assessment: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Pulmonary nodules are managed on the basis of their size and morphologic characteristics. Radiologists are familiar with assessing nodule size by measuring diameter using manually deployed electronic calipers. Size may also be assessed with 3D volumetric measurements (referred to as volumetry) obtained with software. Nodule size and growth are more accurately assessed with volumetry than on the basis of diameter, and the evidence supporting clinical use of volumetry has expanded, driven by its use in lung cancer screening nodule management algorithms in Europe. The application of volumetry has the potential to reduce recommendations for imaging follow-up of indeterminate solid nodules without impacting cancer detection. Although changes in scanning conditions and volumetry software packages can lead to variation in volumetry results, ongoing technical advances have improved the reliability of calculated volumes. Volumetry is now the primary method for determining size of solid nodules in the European lung cancer screening position statement and British Thoracic Society recommendations. The purposes of this article are to review technical aspects, advantages, and limitations of volumetry and, by considering specific scenarios, to contextualize the use of volumetry with respect to its importance in morphologic evaluation, its role in predicting malignancy in risk models, and its practical impact on nodule management. Implementation challenges and areas requiring further evidence are also highlighted.

Using Geospatial Analysis to Evaluate Access to Lung Cancer Screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Screening current and former heavy smokers 55 to 80 years of age for lung cancer (LC) with low-dose chest CT scanning has been recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013. Although the number of screening facilities in the United States has increased, screening uptake has been slow. RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent is geographic access to screening facilities a barrier for screening uptake nationally? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Screening facilities were defined as American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR) facilities. Analysis was performed at different geographic levels using a road network to calculate travel distances for the recommended age groups. Full access to screening was defined as the entire 55- to 79-year-old population being within 40 miles of an ACR LCSR facility. No access was defined as lack of access by the entire target population. Partial access was expressed in intervening quartiles. A geospatial approach then was used to integrate accessibility with smoking prevalence and LC mortality rates to identify potential focus areas visually. RESULTS: Screening facilities addresses were geocoded to identify 3,592 unique locations. Analysis of census tracts and aggregation to counties revealed that among 3,142 counties, adults 55 to 79 years of age have full access to an LC screening registry facility in 1,988 (63%) counties, partial access in 587 (19%) counties, and no access in 567 (18%) counties. Overall, less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities. Variation in screening facility access was noted across the United States, between states, and within some states. INTERPRETATION: It is recommended to calculate accessibility using subcounty geographies and to examine variation regionally and within states. A foundation geographic accessibility layer can be integrated with other variables to identify geographic disparities in access to screening and to focus on areas for interventions. Identifying areas of greatest need can inform state and local officials and healthcare organizations when planning and implementing LC screening programs.

Relationships Between Health Care Disparities and Coverage Policies for Breast, Colon, and Lung Cancer Screening.

Disparities in outcomes exist for breast, colon, and lung cancer among diverse populations, particularly racial and ethnic underrepresented minorities (URMs) and individuals from lower socioeconomic status. For example, blacks experience mortality rates up to about 42% higher than whites for these cancers. Furthermore, although overall death rates have been declining, the differential access to screening and care has aggravated disparities. Our purpose is to assess how the coverage policies of CMS and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) influence these disparities. Additionally, barriers are often encountered in accessing screening tests and receiving prompt treatment. To narrow, and potentially eliminate, outcomes disparities, CMS and USPSTF could consider revising their decision-making processes regarding coverage. Some options include (1) extending their evidence base to include observational studies that involve groups at higher risk; (2) lowering the threshold ages for screening to encompass differences in incidence; (3) CMS approving screening CT colonography coverage, which can even increase compliance with other screening tests; (4) clarifying and streamlining guidelines; (5) supporting research on improving access to screening; and (6) encouraging the development of more navigation services for URMs.