Black Race Remains Associated with Lower Eligibility for Screening Using 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations Among Lung Cancer Patients at an Urban Safety Net Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the revised US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria reduced inequities in lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility among a racially diverse sample of patients with lung cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of adults diagnosed with primary lung malignancies at an urban safety net hospital. For all patients and exclusively ever-smokers, χ2 tests were used to evaluate differences in LCS eligibility among socio-demographic variables using the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF criteria. Patients who were ineligible for LCS were categorized by reason for exclusion. RESULTS: Among 678 lung cancer patients (46% female, mean age 66 ± 10 years), 51% were White, and 39% were Black. Using the 2013 guidelines, White patients (57%) would have been more likely to be eligible than Black (37%) and other-race patients (35%) (P < 0.0001) at time of cancer diagnosis. Under the 2021 guidelines, White patients (68%) remained more likely to be eligible for LCS than Black (54%) and other-race patients (48%) (P = 0.0002). Among exclusively ever-smoking patients, we did not observe a significant difference in eligibility by race under the 2021 USPSTF guidelines (White [73%], Black [65%], and other-race [65%]; [P = 0.48]). Sex, ethnicity, education level, and insurance type were not associated with differential screening eligibility under either the 2013 or 2021 guidelines. CONCLUSION: The revised 2021 USPSTF LCS guidelines may not be sufficient to eliminate racial inequities in LCS eligibility among patients who go on to be diagnosed with primary lung cancer. Differential rates of lung cancer among never-smokers may contribute to this inequity.

High-Throughput Sequencing in Respiratory, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Research. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

High-throughput, "next-generation" sequencing methods are now being broadly applied across all fields of biomedical research, including respiratory disease, critical care, and sleep medicine. Although there are numerous review articles and best practice guidelines related to sequencing methods and data analysis, there are fewer resources summarizing issues related to study design and interpretation, especially as applied to common, complex, nonmalignant diseases. To address these gaps, a single-day workshop was held at the American Thoracic Society meeting in May 2017, led by the American Thoracic Society Section on Genetics and Genomics. The aim of this workshop was to review the design, analysis, interpretation, and functional follow-up of high-throughput sequencing studies in respiratory, critical care, and sleep medicine research. This workshop brought together experts in multiple fields, including genetic epidemiology, biobanking, bioinformatics, and research ethics, along with physician-scientists with expertise in a range of relevant diseases. The workshop focused on application of DNA and RNA sequencing research in common chronic diseases and did not cover sequencing studies in lung cancer, monogenic diseases (e.g., cystic fibrosis), or microbiome sequencing. Participants reviewed and discussed study design, data analysis and presentation, interpretation, functional follow-up, and reporting of results. This report summarizes the main conclusions of the workshop, specifically addressing the application of these methods in respiratory, critical care, and sleep medicine research. This workshop report may serve as a resource for our research community as well as for journal editors and reviewers of sequencing-based manuscript submissions in our research field.

Initial surgical experience following implementation of lung cancer screening at an urban safety net hospital.

BACKGROUND: Safety net hospitals provide care mostly to low-income, uninsured, and vulnerable populations, in whom delays in cancer screening are established barriers. Socioeconomic barriers might pose important challenges to the success of a lung cancer screening program at a safety net hospital. We aimed to determine screening follow-up compliance, rates of diagnostic and treatment procedures, and the rate of cancer diagnosis in patients classified as category 4 by the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS 4). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients enrolled in our multidisciplinary lung cancer screening program between March 2015 and July 2016. Demographics, smoking status, Lung-RADS score, and number of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and cancer diagnoses were captured. RESULTS: A total of 554 patients were screened over a 16-month period. The mean patient age was 63 years (range, 47-85 years), and 60% were male. The majority (92%; 512 of 554) were classified as Lung-RADS 1 to 3, and 8% (42 of 554) were classified as Lung-RADS 4. Among the Lung-RADS 4 patients, 98% (41 of 42) completed their recommended follow-up; 29% (12 of 42) underwent a diagnostic procedure, for an overall diagnostic intervention rate of 2% (12 of 554). Eleven of these 12 patients had cancer, and 1 patient had sarcoidosis. The overall rate of surgical resection was 0.9% (5 of 554), and the rate of diagnostic intervention for noncancer diagnosis was 0.1% (1 of 554). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multidisciplinary lung cancer screening program at a safety net hospital is feasible. Compliance with follow-up and interventional recommendations in Lung-RADS 4 patients was high despite anticipated social challenges. Overall diagnostic and surgical resection rates and interventions for noncancer diagnosis were low in our initial experience.