Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. OBJECTIVE: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: United States, 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT. RESULTS: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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.

Occurrence of Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening Between Patients and Healthcare Providers in the USA, 2017.

Computed tomography lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. However, screening is underutilized. This study assesses the extent to which providers discuss lung cancer screening with their patients, as a lack of discussion and counseling may serve as a potential cause of low utilization rates. Data from 1667 adults aged 55-80 years sampled in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey was utilized. A weighted multivariable logistic regression model was fit with past-year discussion about lung cancer screening with a provider as the outcome. The adjusted odds of discussion were higher for current cigarette smokers compared to non-cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 8.74). Despite higher odds, the absolute prevalence was low with only 18% (95% CI, 11.8 to 24.2%) of current adult smokers reporting a past-year discussion. Knowledge of screening from trusted sources of medical information, such as doctors, can increase screening rates and may ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

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.

Assessing the Generalizability of the National Lung Screening Trial: Comparison of Patients with Stage 1 Disease.

RATIONALE: The findings of the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) are the basis for screening high-risk individuals according to age and smoking history. Although screening is covered for eligible Medicare beneficiaries, the generalizability of the NLST in the elderly population has been questioned. OBJECTIVES: Compare outcomes of patients diagnosed with stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer in the NLST to a nationally representative cohort of elderly patients Methods: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and NLST datasets for patients with stage 1 disease aged 65 to 74 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and 30-, 60-, and 90-day treatment mortality were measured. When compared with the NLST group undergoing surgery for stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer, those in the SEER-Medicare NLST eligible cohort had no difference in adjusted odds ratios for 30-, 60-, and 90-day surgical mortality (P values = 0.97, 0.65, and 0.46, respectively). Although the 5-year cancer-specific survival did not differ between cohorts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 NLST vs. SEER-Medicare NLST eligible; P = 0.21), the adjusted HR estimate for all-cause mortality was better in the NLST cohort (HR, 0.71; P < 0.01). For patients who did not receive surgery for early-stage disease (presumably for curative intent), the outcomes were far worse (13.1, 18.9, 23.9%, for 30-, 60-, and 90-day treatment mortality, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with minimal comorbid conditions meeting the inclusion criteria of the NLST who underwent surgery had excellent postoperative outcomes and similar lung cancer-specific 5-year survivorship. In those with significant comorbidities or those not undergoing surgery, competing causes of death may diminish the benefit, and there is no evidence to recommend screening in this group.

The Association between Smoking Abstinence and Mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial.

RATIONALE: Smoking is the largest contributor to lung cancer risk, and those who continue to smoke after diagnosis have a worse survival. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk individuals. Smoking cessation is an essential component of a high-quality screening program. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of smoking history and abstinence on mortality in high-risk individuals who participated in the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NLST). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements included self-reported demographics, medical and smoking history, and lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Cox regression was used to study the association of mortality with smoking status and pack-years. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were examined for differences in survival based on trial arm and smoking status. Current smokers had an increased lung cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR], 2.14-2.29) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.79-1.85) compared with former smokers irrespective of screening arm. Former smokers in the control arm abstinent for 7 years had a 20% mortality reduction comparable with the benefit reported with LDCT screening in the NLST. The maximum benefit was seen with the combination of smoking abstinence at 15 years and LDCT screening, which resulted in a 38% reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality (HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Seven years of smoking abstinence reduced lung cancer-specific mortality at a magnitude comparable with LDCT screening. This reduction was greater when abstinence was combined with screening, highlighting the importance of smoking cessation efforts in screening programs.

Lung cancer screening.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in adults of age 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and are currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years. This recommendation is largely based on the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial. Both policy-level and clinical decision-making about LDCT screening must consider the potential benefits of screening (reduced mortality from lung cancer) and possible harms. Effective screening requires an appreciation that screening should be limited to individuals at high risk of death from lung cancer, and that the risk of harm related to false positive findings, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary invasive testing is real. A comprehensive understanding of these aspects of screening will inform appropriate implementation, with the objective that an evidence-based and systematic approach to screening will help to reduce the enormous mortality burden of lung cancer.

Racial Differences in Outcomes within the National Lung Screening Trial. Implications for Widespread Implementation.

RATIONALE: Black individuals with lung cancer (LC) experience higher mortality because they present with more advanced disease and are less likely to undergo curative resection for early-stage disease. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated improved LC mortality by screening high-risk patients with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The benefit of LDCT screening in black individuals is unknown. OBJECTIVES: Examine results of the NLST by race. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial (NCT00047385) performed in 33 U.S. centers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall and lung cancer-specific mortality were measured. Screening with LDCT reduced LC mortality in all racial groups but more so in black individuals (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 vs. 0.86). Smoking increased the likelihood of death from LC, and when stratified by race black smokers were twice as likely to die as white smokers (HR, 4.10 vs. 2.25). Adjusting for sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics, black individuals experienced higher all-cause mortality than white individuals (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.49); however, black individuals screened with LDCT had a reduction in all-cause mortality. Black individuals were younger, were more likely to be current smokers, had more comorbidities, and had fewer years of formal education than white individuals (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Black individuals screened with LDCT had decreased mortality from lung cancer. However, the demographics associated with improved LC survival were less commonly found in black individuals. The overall mortality in the NLST was higher for black individuals than white individuals, but improved in black individuals screened, suggesting that this subgroup may have had improved access to care. To realize the reductions in mortality from LC screening, dissemination efforts need to be tailored to meet the needs of this community.

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.

Screening and early detection efforts in lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Since publication of results from the National Lung Screening Trial, several professional organizations, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, have published guidelines recommending low-dose computed tomography for screening in asymptomatic, high-risk individuals. The benefits of screening include detection of cancer at an early stage when a definitive cure is possible, but the risks include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, psychological distress, and radiation exposure. The current review covers the scope of low-dose computed tomography screening, potential risks, costs, and future directions in the efforts for early detection of lung cancer.

Convex probe endobronchial ultrasound.

Convex probe endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is a minimally invasive diagnostic technique that allows real-time sampling of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes and central pulmonary lesions. Its utility in diagnosing both malignant and nonmalignant diseases has led to an increased uptake and use by pulmonologists over the past decade. Because of the robust evidence supporting its safety and diagnostic yield, EBUS is now the first guideline recommended test for staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has also a role in providing tissue for molecular analysis, thereby guiding in the selection of agents in the new era of personalized chemotherapies in the treatment of NSCLC. The following review highlights the evidence for EBUS in diagnosing mediastinal pathology and addresses technique, training, and competency and future directions for this technology.

Development of an Electronic Health Record Self-Referral Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: One-Group Posttest Study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 14 million individuals in the United States are eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS), but only 5.8% completed screening in 2021. Given the low uptake despite the potential great health benefit of LCS, interventions aimed at increasing uptake are warranted. The use of a patient-facing electronic health record (EHR) patient portal direct messaging tool offers a new opportunity to both engage eligible patients in preventative screening and provide a unique referral pathway for tobacco treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to develop and pilot an EHR patient-facing self-referral tool for an established LCS program in an academic medical center. METHODS: Guided by constructs of the Health Belief Model associated with LCS uptake (eg, knowledge and self-efficacy), formative development of an EHR-delivered engagement message, infographic, and self-referring survey was conducted. The survey submits eligible self-reported patient information to a scheduler for the LCS program. The materials were pretested using an interviewer-administered mixed methods survey captured through venue-day-time sampling in 5 network-affiliated pulmonology clinics. Materials were then integrated into the secure patient messaging feature in the EHR system. Next, a one-group posttest quality improvement pilot test was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 17 individuals presenting for lung screening shared-decision visits completed the pretest survey. More than half were newly referred for LCS (n=10, 60%), and the remaining were returning patients. When asked if they would use a self-referring tool through their EHR messaging portal, 94% (n=16) reported yes. In it, 15 participants provided oral feedback that led to refinement in the tool and infographic prior to pilot-testing. When the initial application of the tool was sent to a convenience sample of 150 random patients, 13% (n=20) opened the self-referring survey. Of the 20 who completed the pilot survey, 45% (n=9) were eligible for LCS based on self-reported smoking data. A total of 3 self-referring individuals scheduled an LCS. CONCLUSIONS: Pretest and initial application data suggest this tool is a positive stimulus to trigger the decision-making process to engage in a self-referral process to LCS among eligible patients. This self-referral tool may increase the number of patients engaging in LCS and could also be used to aid in self-referral to other preventative health screenings. This tool has implications for clinical practice. Tobacco treatment clinical services or health care systems should consider using EHR messaging for LCS self-referral. This approach may be cost-effective to improve LCS engagement and uptake. Additional referral pathways could be built into this EHR tool to not only refer patients who currently smoke to LCS but also simultaneously trigger a referral to clinical tobacco treatment.

Diagnostic approach to the solitary pulmonary nodule.

The number of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) detected each year is expected to increase dramatically with the implementation of lung cancer screening. Although some will have radiographic features highly specific for benignity, the rest are considered indeterminate and require further investigation. The management options include continued surveillance or immediate diagnostic sampling. The decision to proceed with immediate sampling is determined by nodule characteristics (i.e., density and size), and patient risk factors and preferences. Sampling is achieved either by surgical or by nonsurgical techniques, and the choice between the two is influenced by the probability of malignancy. Surgical methods are preferred in SPNs with high probability of malignancy because they provide both a definitive diagnosis and treatment in a single procedure. In contrast, when the probability of malignancy is low to moderate nonsurgical sampling is preferred. The following is a review of the diagnostic management options available when approaching an SPN.

Guided Bronchoscopy for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Lesions: An Updated Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guided bronchoscopy is increasingly used to diagnose peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). A meta-analysis published in 2012 demonstrated a pooled diagnostic yield of 70%; however, recent publications have documented yields as low as 40% and as high as 90%. RESEARCH QUESTION: Has the diagnostic yield of guided bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs improved over the past decade? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed of studies evaluating the diagnostic yield of differing bronchoscopic technologies used to reach PPLs. Study quality was assessed using the Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy of studies (QUADAS-2) assessment tool. Number of lesions, type of technology used, overall diagnostic yield, and yield by size were extracted. Adverse events were recorded. Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize findings across all studies. RESULTS: A total of 16,389 lesions from 126 studies were included. There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield prior to 2012 (39 studies; 3,052 lesions; yield 70.5%) vs after 2012 (87 studies; 13,535 lesions; yield 69.2%) (P > .05). Additionally, there was no significant difference in yield when comparing different technologies. Studies with low risk of overall bias had a lower diagnostic yield than those with high risk of bias (66% vs 71%, respectively; P = .018). Lesion size > 2 cm, presence of bronchus sign, and reports with a high prevalence of malignancy in the study population were associated with significantly higher diagnostic yield. Significant (P < .0001) between-study heterogeneity was also noted. INTERPRETATION: Despite the reported advances in bronchoscopic technology to diagnose PPLs, the diagnostic yield of guided bronchoscopy has not improved.

Factors Associated With Smoking Cessation Attempts in Lung Cancer Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality resulting from lung cancer screening (LCS) with an additive reduction from smoking abstinence. However, successful smoking cessation within LCS is variable. RESEARCH QUESTION: What patient and treatment factors are associated with attempts to quit smoking among those screened for lung cancer? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the NLST, patient demographics, patient smoking behaviors, and tobacco treatment variables were stratified by patient smoking status. The Cox proportional hazards ratio was used to evaluate each variable's effect on attempting to quit smoking. RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred sixty-nine patients were smoking actively at enrollment in the NLST. Of the patients who reported they were smoking, 73.4% did not receive any pharmacologic tobacco treatment. More patients who attempted to quit received pharmacologic tobacco treatment than those who continued to smoke: (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], 18.0% vs 12.4% [P < .01]; bupropion, 7.9% vs 6.9% [P = .02]; both NRT and bupropion, 5.6% vs 3.9% [P < .01]). Stable users were more likely to be women (47.8% vs 43.8%; P < .01), to be African American (8.2% vs 6.3%; P = .007), to be unmarried (43.2% vs 36.9% [P < .01]), and to have less than a college education (47.7% vs 42.3%; P < .01). Patients with high dependence who received dual therapy with bupropion and NRT showed the highest likelihood of quit attempt (hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.75-2.44). INTERPRETATION: In this analysis, only one-quarter of patients who underwent LCS and who smoked were treated with pharmacologic therapy, which is associated with increased likelihood of attempting to quit. Certain characteristics are associated with difficulty with attempting to quit smoking. Those with high nicotine dependence benefitted most from dual pharmacologic therapy.

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 2015 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial data. RESULTS: Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred. INTERPRETATION: This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer.

National Survey of Lung Cancer Screening Practices in Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening can save lives through the early detection of lung cancer, and professional societies recommend key lung cancer screening program components to ensure high-quality screening. Yet, little is known about the key components that comprise the various screening program models in routine clinical settings. The objective was to compare the utilization of these key components across centralized, hybrid, and decentralized lung cancer screening programs. METHODS: The survey was designed to identify current structures and processes of lung cancer screening programs. It was administered electronically to Veterans Health Administration facilities nationally (N=122) between August and December 2021. Results were analyzed between March and August 2022 and stratified by self-identified lung cancer screening program type, and we tested the hypothesis that centralized screening programs would be more likely to have implemented practices that support lung cancer screening, followed by hybrid and decentralized programs, using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. RESULTS: Overall, 69 (56.6%) facilities completed the survey, and respondents were lung cancer screening coordinators (39.1%), pulmonologists (33.3%), and oncologists (10.1%). Facilities most frequently self-identified as having a centralized (37.7%) program model, followed by identifying as having hybrid (30.4%) and decentralized (20.3%) programs. There was varying implementation of practices to support lung cancer screening, with hybrid and decentralized programs less likely to have lung cancer screening registries, lung cancer screening steering committees, or dedicated lung cancer screening coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is overlap between the components of various lung cancer screening program types, centralized programs more frequently implemented practices before the initial screening to support lung cancer screening. This work provides a path for future investigations to identify which lung cancer screening practices are effective to improve lung cancer screening outcomes, which could help inform implementation in settings with limited resources.