Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.

Stakeholder Research Priorities for Smoking Cessation Interventions within Lung Cancer Screening Programs. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

RATIONALE: Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned. RESULTS: There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings. CONCLUSIONS: This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.

Tobacco treatment specialists' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening: Potential piece of the puzzle for increasing lung cancer screening awareness.

OBJECTIVES: Less than 5% of eligible U.S. individuals undergo lung cancer screening (LCS). A significant barrier is lack of awareness; more effective outreach and education strategies are needed to achieve greater population LCS uptake. Tobacco Treatment Specialists (TTSs) are an untapped resource to assist and understanding TTS knowledge and perspectives about LCS and readiness and capacity to assist is a critical first step. METHODS: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design was conducted to understand LCS knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of TTSs. A cross-sectional survey (N = 147) was conducted supplemented with 3 focus groups (N = 12). RESULTS: TTSs lacked good working knowledge about LCS in general and screening guidelines, but think it is important for their patient population and open to routinely assessing and adding this educational component into their current workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco treatment offers a unique venue for LCS awareness and is a setting where there are experienced specialists trained in tobacco use assessment and treatment. Results highlight the unmet training needs required to facilitate integration of tobacco treatment and LCS. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: TTSs are an expanding healthcare workforce. There is a strong need for current TTSs to receive additional training in the benefits of LCS.

Getting ready for prime time: Recommended adaptations of an Empathic Communication Skills training intervention to reduce lung cancer stigma for a national multi-center trial.

Building upon prior work developing and pilot testing a provider-focused Empathic Communication Skills (ECS) training intervention, this study sought feedback from key invested partners who work with individuals with lung cancer (i.e. stakeholders including scientific and clinical advisors and patient advocates) on the ECS training intervention. The findings will be used to launch a national virtually-delivered multi-center clinical trial that will examine the effectiveness and implementation of the evidence-based ECS training intervention to reduce patients' experience of lung cancer stigma. A 1-day, hybrid, key invested partners meeting was held in New York City in Fall 2021. We presented the ECS training intervention to all conference attendees (N = 25) to seek constructive feedback on modifications of the training content and platform for intervention delivery to maximize its impact. After participating in the immersive training, all participants engaged in a group discussion guided by semi-structured probes. A deductive thematic content analysis was conducted to code focus group responses into 12 distinct a priori content modification recommendations. Content refinement was suggested in 8 of the 12 content modification themes: tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engagement and feedback from key invested multi-sector partner is a valuable resource for intervention content modifications. Using a structured format for refining evidence-based interventions can facilitate efforts to understand the nature of modifications required for scaling up interventions and the impact of these modifications on outcomes of interest. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05456841.

This study was done to get feedback from people who are involved with patients with lung cancer (PwLCs) including scientists, clinicians, and patient advocates on training in Empathic Communication Skills (ECS). The training is intended to reduce PwLCs experience of lung cancer stigma. The feedback is being used to help prepare for launching the training program in multiple cancer centers across the USA to test how well the training will work to reduce the stigma felt by PwLCs. A one-day, hybrid (in-person and virtual attendees) meeting was held in New York City in October 2021. We presented the original version of the ECS training program to all conference attendees (N = 25) to get feedback on modifications to improve the training program for the larger study planned at many cancer centers. After the training, all meeting attendees participated in a semi-structured group discussion. The content of the discussion was analyzed and sorted into 12 distinct categories that were defined before the meeting. Changes to the content were suggested in 8 of the 12 categories. These changes included tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engaging and getting feedback from people involved in a topic is a good way to improve content and delivery of training materials.

Age-based disparities in telehealth use in an urban, underserved population in cancer and pulmonary clinics: A need for policy change.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth rapidly emerged as an essential health care service and became particularly important for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. However, the benefits of telehealth have not been fully realized for some of the most vulnerable populations due to inequitable access to telehealth capable technology. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess accessibility and satisfaction with telehealth technology by vulnerable patients with cancer and pulmonary disease. METHODOLOGY: A paper survey and internet-based survey were developed and administered to adult (≥18 years) cancer and pulmonary clinic patients (July 1, 2020 to October 30, 2020). RESULTS: Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact test were performed. Two hundred eleven patients completed the survey. Adults ≥50 years old (older) had reduced access to smartphone video capability and internet connection compared with adults less than 50 years old (59% vs. 90%, p < .01). Older adults reported more challenges with telehealth visits compared with younger adults (50.3%, 28.6%; p < .01). No difference in access to technology and preferences for telehealth versus in-person care was found by race, gender, or education level. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all patients (95%) who had a previous experience with a telehealth visit felt confident in the quality of care they received via telehealth. Younger adults preferred video visits compared with older adults (75% vs. 50.6%, p < .01). Older adults were less likely to have access to smartphones with internet access, have more challenges with telehealth visits, and were less likely to prefer audio-video telehealth visits compared with younger adults. IMPLICATIONS: Ensuring equitable access to all health care delivery modalities by telehealth, including audio-only visits for patients across the age continuum, is paramount.

Impact of a Structured Response and Evidence-Based Checklist on In-hospital Stroke Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital stroke events account for 2% to 17% of all ischemic strokes in the United States. Current stroke guidelines do not provide guidance on how to care for in-hospital stroke. Use of checklists during high-acuity events reduces error and provides clarity for responding staff. We sought to determine whether the use of an evidence-based checklist to guide in-hospital stroke response improved intervention times and patient outcomes. METHODS: This study used a retrospective chart review of patients hospitalized between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, at a community hospital certified as a primary stroke center with the Joint Commission. Encounters were sorted into preintervention and postintervention groups to evaluate for change in treatment rates, new or worsened disability, and mortality. Nursing staff who respond to in-hospital stroke calls ("response staff") were also surveyed regarding their perception of benefit and firsthand experience when using the checklist. RESULTS: A total of 168 patient charts were reviewed (18 prechecklist, 150 postchecklist). After checklist implementation, treatment with intravenous thrombolytics for in-hospital stroke events increased from 0% to 11%. All-cause mortality decreased from 23.1% to 15.0%, whereas ambulatory disability at discharge increased from 38.0% to 62.1%. The increase in disability likely reflects the reduction in mortality, improved data collection, and the increase in postimplementation reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a checklist during inpatient stroke events can potentially increase adherence to guidelines for appropriate treatment and reduce mortality. Hospital response teams should consider use of a structured response system with an evidence-based checklist for high-acuity, low-frequency events such as in-hospital stroke.

The economic impact of a nurse practitioner-directed lung cancer screening, incidental pulmonary nodule, and tobacco-cessation clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer screening programs have become increasingly prevalent within the United States after the National Lung Screening Trial results. We aimed to review the financial impact after programmatic implementation of Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner-led programs of Lung Cancer Screening and Tobacco Related Diseases, Incidental Pulmonary Nodule Clinic, and Tobacco Cessation Services. METHODS: We reviewed revenue from 2013 to 2016 by our nurse practitioner-led program. Encounters were queried for charges related to outpatient evaluation and management, professional procedures, and facility charges related to both outpatient and inpatient procedures. Revenue was normalized using 2016 data tables and the national Medicare conversion factor (35.8043). RESULTS: Our program evaluated 694 individuals, of whom 75% (518/694) are enrolled within the lung cancer-screening program. Overall revenue associated with the programs was $733,336. Outpatient evaluation and management generated revenue of $168,372. In addition, professional procedure revenue accounted for an additional $60,015 with facility revenue adding an additional $504,949. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse practitioner-led program of lung cancer screening, incidental pulmonary nodules, and tobacco-cessation services can provide additional revenue opportunities for a Thoracic Surgery and Interventional Pulmonology Division, as well as a health care system. The current national, median annual wage of a nurse practitioner is $98,190, and the cost associated directly to their salary (and benefits) may remain neutral or negative within certain programs. However, the larger economic benefit may be realized within the division and institution. This potential additional revenue appears related to evaluation of newly identified diseases and subsequent evaluations, procedures, and operations.

Pack-Year Cigarette Smoking History for Determination of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility. Comparison of the Electronic Medical Record versus a Shared Decision-making Conversation.

RATIONALE: Implementation of lung cancer screening programs is occurring across the United States. Programs vary in approaches to patient identification and shared decision-making. The eligibility of persons referred to screening programs, the outcomes of eligibility determination during shared decision-making, and the potential for the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify eligible individuals have not been well described. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to assess the eligibility of individuals referred for lung cancer screening and compare information extracted from the EMR to information derived from a shared decision-making conversation for the determination of eligibility for lung cancer screening. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of individuals referred to a centralized lung cancer screening program serving a five-hospital health services system in Seattle, Washington between October 2014 and January 2016. Demographics, referral, and outcomes data were collected. A pack-year smoking history derived from the EMR was compared with the pack-year history obtained during a shared decision-making conversation performed by a licensed nurse professional representing the lung cancer screening program. RESULTS: A total of 423 individuals were referred to the program, of whom 59.6% (252 of 423) were eligible. Of those, 88.9% (224 of 252) elected screening. There was 96.2% (230 of 239) discordance in pack-year smoking history between the EMR and the shared decision-making conversation. The EMR underreported pack-years of smoking for 85.2% (196 of 230) of the participants, with a median difference of 29.2 pack-years. If identification of eligible individuals relied solely on the accuracy of the pack-year smoking history recorded in the EMR, 53.6% (128 of 239) would have failed to meet the 30-pack-year threshold for screening. CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals referred for lung cancer screening may be ineligible. Overreliance on the EMR for identification of individuals at risk may lead to missed opportunities for appropriate lung cancer screening.