The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Implementation of high-quality lung cancer screening.

More than a decade has passed since researchers in the Early Lung Cancer Action Project and the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to save lives of high-risk individuals from lung cancer through regular screening by low dose computed tomography scan. The emergence of the most recent findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung-cancer screening trial (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek [NELSON]) further strengthens and expands on this evidence. These studies demonstrate the benefit of integrating lung cancer screening into clinical practice, yet lung cancer continues to lead cancer mortality rates in the United States. Fewer than 20% of screen eligible individuals are enrolled in lung cancer screening, leaving millions of qualified individuals without the standard of care and benefit they deserve. This article, part of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) strategic plan, examines the impediments to successful adoption, dissemination, and implementation of lung cancer screening. Proposed solutions identified by the ACS NLCRT Implementation Strategies Task Group and work currently underway to address these challenges to improve uptake of lung cancer screening are discussed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The evidence supporting the benefit of lung cancer screening in adults who previously or currently smoke has led to widespread endorsement and coverage by health plans. Lung cancer screening programs should be designed to promote high uptake rates of screening among eligible adults, and to deliver high-quality screening and follow-up care.

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.

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.

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.

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.