Factors Associated With Declining Lung Cancer Screening After Discussion With a Physician in a Cohort of US Veterans.

Importance: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is underused in the US, particularly in underserved populations, and little is known about factors associated with declining LCS. Guidelines call for shared decision-making when LCS is offered to ensure informed, patient-centered decisions. Objective: To assess how frequently veterans decline LCS and examine factors associated with declining LCS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included LCS-eligible US veterans who were offered LCS between January 1, 2013, and February 1, 2021, by a physician at 1 of 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities that routinely used electronic health record clinical reminders documenting LCS eligibility and veterans' decisions to accept or decline LCS. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse or Medicare claims files from the VA Information Resource Center. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was documentation, in clinical reminders, that veterans declined LCS after a discussion with a physician. Logistic regression analyses with physicians and facilities as random effects were used to assess factors associated with declining LCS compared with agreeing to LCS. Results: Of 43 257 LCS-eligible veterans who were offered LCS (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [5.8] years), 95.9% were male, 84.2% were White, and 37.1% lived in a rural zip code; 32.0% declined screening. Veterans were less likely to decline LCS if they were younger (age 55-59 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; age 60-64 years: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), were Black (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), were Hispanic (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), did not have to make co-payments (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99), or had more frequent VHA health care utilization (outpatient: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.72; emergency department: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Veterans were more likely to decline LCS if they were older (age 70-74 years: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.37; age 75-80 years: OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.73-2.17), lived farther from a VHA screening facility (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08), had spent more days in long-term care (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), or had specific cardiovascular or mental health conditions (congestive heart failure: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39; stroke: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; schizophrenia: OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.19). The physician and facility offering LCS accounted for 19% and 36% of the variation in declining LCS, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, older veterans with serious comorbidities were more likely to decline LCS and Black and Hispanic veterans were more likely to accept it. Variation in LCS decisions was accounted for more by the facility and physician offering LCS than by patient factors. These findings suggest that shared decision-making conversations in which patients play a central role in guiding care may enhance patient-centered care and address disparities in LCS.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on ICU Organization, Care Processes, and Frontline Clinician Experiences: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented adjustments to ICU organization and care processes globally. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Did hospital emergency responses to the COVID-19 pandemic differ depending on hospital setting? Which strategies worked well to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Between August and November 2020, we carried out semistructured interviews of intensivists from tertiary and community hospitals across six regions in the United States that experienced early or large surges of COVID-19 patients, or both. We identified themes of hospital emergency responses using the four S framework of acute surge planning: space, staff, stuff, system. RESULTS: Thirty-three intensivists from seven tertiary and six community hospitals participated. Clinicians across both settings believed that canceling elective surgeries was helpful to increase ICU capabilities and that hospitals should establish clearly defined thresholds at which surgeries are limited during future surge events. ICU staff was the most limited resource; staff shortages were improved by the use of tiered staffing models, just-in-time training for non-ICU clinicians, designated treatment teams, and deployment of trainees. Personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages and reuse were widespread, causing substantial distress among clinicians; hands-on PPE training was helpful to reduce clinicians' anxiety. Transparency and involvement of frontline clinicians as stakeholders were important components of effective emergency responses and helped to maintain trust among staff. INTERPRETATION: We identified several strategies potentially to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists working in both tertiary and community hospital settings. Our study also demonstrated the importance of trust and transparency between frontline staff and hospital leadership as key components of effective emergency responses during public health crises.

What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS). OBJECTIVE: We examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs. DESIGN: Multicenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS. APPROACH: We performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist. RESULTS: All clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening.

RATIONALE: Lung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.

Longitudinal Changes in Depression Symptoms and Survival Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A National Cohort Assessment.

Purpose Depression symptoms are common among patients with lung cancer; however, longitudinal changes and their impact on survival are understudied. Methods This was a prospective, observational study from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium from five US geographically defined regions from September 2003 through December 2005. Patients enrolled within 3 months of their lung cancer diagnosis were eligible. The eight-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale was administered at diagnosis and 12 months' follow-up. The main outcome was survival, which was evaluated using Kaplan-Meyer curves and adjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results Among 1,790 participants, 681 (38%) had depression symptoms at baseline and an additional 105 (14%) developed new-onset depression symptoms during treatment. At baseline, depression symptoms were associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.32; P = .01). Participants were classified into the following four groups based on longitudinal changes in depression symptoms from baseline to follow-up: never depression symptoms (n = 640), new-onset depression symptoms (n = 105), depression symptom remission (n = 156), and persistent depression symptoms (n = 254) and HRs were calculated. Using the never-depression symptoms group as a reference group, HRs were as follows: new-onset depression symptoms, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.01; P = .006); depression symptom remission, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.31; P = .89), and persistent depression symptoms, 1.42 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.75; P = .001). At baseline, depression symptoms were associated with increased mortality among participants with early-stage disease (stages I and II; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.04), but not late-stage disease (stages III and IV; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.22). At follow-up, depression symptoms were associated with increased mortality among participants with early-stage disease (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.31) and those with late-stage disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.69). Conclusion Among patients with lung cancer, longitudinal changes in depression symptoms are associated with differences in mortality, particularly among patients with early-stage disease. Symptom remission is associated with a similar mortality rate as never having had depression.

Longitudinal Assessment of Distress among Veterans with Incidental Pulmonary Nodules.

RATIONALE: Millions of patients are diagnosed with pulmonary nodules every year. Increased distress may be a common harm, but methods of mitigating this distress are unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether high-quality communication regarding the discovery of a pulmonary nodule is associated with a lower level of patient distress. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, repeated-measures cohort study of 121 patients with newly reported, incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. The primary exposure was participant-reported quality of communication regarding the nodule. Secondary exposures included communication measures regarding participants' values, preferences, and decision making. The main outcome was nodule-related distress measured using the Impact of Event Scale. We used adjusted generalized estimating equations to measure the association between nodule communication quality and at least mild distress. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Most participants (57%) reported at least mild distress at least once. While average distress scores decreased over time, one-fourth still had elevated distress after 2 years of surveillance for a nodule. The average calculated risk of cancer at baseline was 10% (SD, 13%), but 52.4% believed they had a greater than 30% risk of lung cancer at baseline, and this percentage remained fairly constant at all visits. High-quality nodule communication was associated with decreased odds of distress (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.73). Lower-quality communication processes regarding participants' values and preferences were also associated with increased odds of distress, but concordance between the actual and preferred decision-making roles was not. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with incidentally discovered pulmonary nodules, distress is common and persistent for about 25%. Many participants substantially overestimate their risk of lung cancer. Incorporating patients' values and preferences into communication about a pulmonary nodule and its evaluation may mitigate distress.

Trends in cigarette smoking and cessation among Medicare managed care recipients, 2005-2012.

OBJECTIVES: To examine recent trends in cigarette smoking among older (65 years and above) adults in the United States. METHODS: We used data from the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey dataset to estimate rates of smoking, quitting, and (re)starting from 2005 to 2012. Medicare Advantage enrollees completed mail surveys at baseline and two years later. We included subgroup analyses by sex, race, and self-rated health. RESULTS: Smoking prevalence declined slightly, with most of the decline occurring over the course of a single year (2007-2008). Rates of quitting declined slightly (meaning fewer people were quitting), and (re)starting marginally declined from 2005 to 2012. There were no substantial differences between subgroups. We did not observe any significant changes in prevalence or cessation of smoking among Medicare Advantage participants during this time. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking remains a public health problem for older adults. We did not find evidence of significant changes in smoking prevalence or cessation for older adults during the time period we examined.

An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice.

RATIONALE: Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals and is now recommended by multiple organizations. However, LDCT screening is complex, and implementation requires careful planning to ensure benefits outweigh harms. Little guidance has been provided for sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs. OBJECTIVES: To promote successful implementation of comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe, effective, and sustainable. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and implementation science. The committee reviewed the evidence from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, surveys, and the experience of early-adopting LDCT screening programs and summarized potential strategies to implement LDCT screening programs successfully. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We address steps that sites should consider during the main three phases of developing an LDCT screening program: planning, implementation, and maintenance. We present multiple strategies to implement the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent ACCP/ATS statement, which will allow sites to select the strategy that best fits with their local context and workflow patterns. Although we do not comment on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, we outline the necessary costs associated with starting and sustaining a high-quality LDCT screening program. CONCLUSIONS: Following the strategies delineated in this policy statement may help sites to develop comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe and effective.

A National Survey of Pulmonologists' Views on Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer.

RATIONALE: Multiple guidelines now recommend low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. Given their central role in the planning of LDCT screening programs, pulmonologists' beliefs about LDCT screening will affect the safety, cost-effectiveness, and success of LDCT screening implementation. OBJECTIVES: To assess pulmonologists' propensity to offer lung cancer screening and their perceptions about LDCT screening. METHODS: We performed a national web-based survey, administered July 2013 to February 2014, among all staff pulmonologists active in Veterans Health Administration pulmonary clinics. The primary outcome was screening propensity (on the basis of responses to clinical vignettes) in relation to guidelines. Using bivariate and multinomial logistic regression, we assessed how perceptions of the evidence, trade-offs, and barriers to implementation of LDCT screening programs affected propensity to screen. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 573 eligible pulmonologists e-mailed, 286 (49.9%) participated. Approximately one-half (52.4%) had a propensity for guideline-concordant screening, 22.7% for overscreening, and 24.9% for underscreening. In bivariate analyses, guideline concordance was associated with acceptance of trial evidence, guidelines, and the efficacy of screening. In multivariable models, underscreeners were more likely to cite the potential harms of screening (e.g., false-positive findings, radiation exposure, incidental findings, unfavorable cost-benefit ratio), as influential factors (relative risk, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.67) and were less influenced by trial evidence and guidelines (relative risk, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.2), as compared with guideline-concordant screeners. Local resource availability did not significantly affect screening propensity, but insufficient infrastructure and personnel were commonly perceived barriers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonologists have varied perceptions of the evidence and trade-offs of LDCT screening, leading to the potential for over- and underscreening. To minimize potential harms as LDCT screening is widely implemented, physicians must understand which patients are appropriate candidates and engage those patients in a shared decision-making process regarding the trade-offs of LDCT screening.

Aggressiveness of intensive care use among patients with lung cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare registry.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 65% of elderly patients with lung cancer who are admitted to the ICU will die within 6 months. Efforts to improve end-of-life care for this population must first understand the patient factors that underlie admission to the ICU. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study examining all fee-for-service inpatient claims in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare registry for elderly patients (aged > 65 years) who had received a diagnosis of lung cancer between 1992 and 2005 and who were hospitalized for reasons other than resection of their lung cancer. We calculated yearly rates of ICU admission per 1,000 hospitalizations via room and board codes or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and diagnosis-related group codes for mechanical ventilation, stratified the rates by receipt of mechanical ventilation and ICU type (medical/surgical/cardiac vs intermediate), and compared these rates over time. RESULTS: A total of 175,756 patients with lung cancer in SEER were hospitalized for a reason other than surgical resection of their tumor during the study period, 49,373 (28%) of whom had at least one ICU stay. The rate of ICU admissions per 1,000 hospitalizations increased over the study period from 140.7 in 1992 to 201.7 in 2005 (P < .001). The majority of the increase in ICU admissions (per 1,000 hospitalizations) between 1992 and 2005 occurred among patients who were not mechanically ventilated (118.2 to 173.3, P < .001) and among those who were in intermediate ICUs (20.0 to 61.9, P < .001), but increased only moderately in medical/surgical/cardiac units (120.7 to 139.9, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ICU admission for patients with lung cancer increased over time, mostly among patients without mechanical ventilation who were largely cared for in intermediate ICUs.

Dyspnea and pain frequently co-occur among Medicare managed care recipients.

RATIONALE: Experimental and neuroimaging studies have suggested strong associations between dyspnea and pain. The co-occurrence of these symptoms has not been examined in community samples. OBJECTIVES: We sought to ascertain the co-occurrence of pain and dyspnea by self-report in a large cohort of Medicare recipients. METHODS: We analyzed data from 266,000 Medicare Managed Care recipients surveyed in 2010 and 2012. Dyspnea was defined by aggregating three questions about shortness of breath (at rest, while walking one block, and while climbing stairs). Pain was measured by four questions about pain interference, chest pain, back pain, and arthritis pain. All measures were dichotomized as high or low/none. We calculated the co-occurrence of pain and dyspnea at baseline, and generated logistic regression models to find the adjusted relative risk (RR) of their co-occurrence, adjusting for patient-level factors and three potential medical causes of dyspnea (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema/asthma, congestive heart failure, and obesity). We modeled the simultaneous development and the simultaneous resolution of dyspnea and pain between baseline and 2 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants with dyspnea had considerably higher prevalence of pain than those without (64 vs. 18%). In fully adjusted models, participants with any of the types of pain were substantially more likely to report dyspnea than those without these types of pain (high pain interference: relative risk [RR], 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.92-2.07; chest pain: RR, 2.11; 95% CI, 2.04-2.18; back pain: RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.71-1.82; and arthritis pain: RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.44-1.54). The relative risks of dyspnea developing or resolving at 2 years were greatly increased (RRs of 1.5 - 4) if pain also developed or resolved. CONCLUSIONS: Pain and dyspnea commonly occurred, developed, and resolved together. Most older adults with dyspnea also reported pain. Medical conditions typically assumed to cause dyspnea did not account for this association. The most plausible explanation for the co-occurrence is physical deconditioning.

Intensive care unit outcomes among patients with lung cancer in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare registry.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) use among patients with cancer is increasing, but data regarding ICU outcomes for patients with lung cancer are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) -Medicare registry (1992 to 2007) to conduct a retrospective cohort study of patients with lung cancer who were admitted to an ICU for reasons other than surgical resection of their tumor. We used logistic and Cox regression to evaluate associations of patient characteristics and hospital mortality and 6-month mortality, respectively. We calculated adjusted associations for mechanical ventilation receipt with hospital and 6-month mortality. RESULTS: Of the 49,373 patients with lung cancer admitted to an ICU for reasons other than surgical resection, 76% of patients survived the hospitalization, and 35% of patients were alive 6 months after discharge. Receipt of mechanical ventilation was associated with increased hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 6.95; 95% CI, 6.89 to 7.01; P < .001), and only 15% of these patients were alive 6 months after discharge. Of all ICU patients with lung cancer, the percentage of patients who survived 6 months from discharge was 36% for patients diagnosed in 1992 and 32% for patients diagnosed in 2005, whereas it was 16% and 11% for patients who received mechanical ventilation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most patients with lung cancer enrolled in Medicare who are admitted to an ICU die within 6 months of admission. To improve patient-centered care, these results should guide shared decision making between patients with lung cancer and their clinicians before an ICU admission.

An official American Thoracic Society systematic review: insurance status and disparities in lung cancer practices and outcomes.

RATIONALE: Insurance coverage is an important determinant of access to care and is one potential cause of disparities in lung cancer care outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review of the available literature to examine the association between insurance status and lung cancer practices and outcomes. METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases through November 6, 2008 for studies that examined the association between lung cancer outcomes and insurance status. Two reviewers independently selected studies. One investigator evaluated their quality according to predetermined criteria, and abstracted data about study design, patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, and outcome measures. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 3,798 potentially relevant studies, 23 met eligibility criteria and were included. Studies reported heterogeneous outcomes among heterogeneous samples of patients that precluded a quantitative synthesis. In general, compared with patients with private or Medicare insurance, patients with Medicaid or no insurance had poorer lung cancer outcomes, including higher incidence rates, later stage at diagnosis, and poorer survival. Overall, patients with Medicaid or no insurance were less likely to undergo curative procedures, but patients without insurance were more likely to receive guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Medicaid or no insurance consistently had worse outcomes than other patients with lung cancer. Some of the disparities may be secondary to residual confounding from smoking and other health behaviors, but available data suggest that patients with lung cancer without insurance do poorly because access to care is limited and/or they present with more advanced disease that is less amenable to treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program implemented at the time of surgery for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients are active smokers at the time of a diagnosis of surgically resectable lung cancer. Perioperative smoking cessation is associated with improved survival, but the cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program initiated immediately before surgery is unknown. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of a formal smoking cessation program. The parameter estimates were taken from the available literature. The model included the cost and effectiveness of the smoking cessation program, cost and incidence of perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and utility measured in quality adjusted life years (QALY). Dollars per QALY and life year were calculated and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The cost/QALY and cost/life year were $16,415 and $45,629 at 1 year after surgery and $2609 and $2703 at 5 years, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses showed the 1 year postsurgery cost/QALY estimates were less than $50,000, and all were less than $12,000 at 5 years. Cost-effectiveness estimates were most sensitive to the frequency of perioperative complications and the estimated short-term utility estimates. CONCLUSION: A smoking cessation program initiated before surgical lung resection is cost-effective at both 1 and 5 years postsurgery. Providers should encourage patients who are still smoking to engage in formal smoking cessation programs.