Brief Report: Understanding Program-Level Impact of COVID-19 in Lung Cancer Screening Programs in the United States.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality, yet uptake pre- and post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains low. The impact of COVID-19 on LCS programs across the United States is unknown. Ours is the first multi-institutional study to identify barriers to LCS experienced during the pandemic. Our work will hopefully inform the development of targeted resources to facilitate increased uptake of LCS. Methods: A nationwide survey of Centers of Excellence (SCOE) in LCS was conducted by GO2 for Lung Cancer Foundation. In 2021, survey items included questions regarding program structure, screening rates, and systemic barriers to LCS delivery experienced amid COVID-19. Results: A total of 99 programs representing 1112 screening sites responded. A median of 868 patients were screened during the year of 2020. Patient recruitment, patient education, and in-person service access were negatively affected by COVID-19, whereas the use of telemedicine was positively affected. Coordination of care and timely reporting of results were largely unaffected by the pandemic. Conclusions: Our findings provide a real-world snapshot of how COVID-19 affected LCS from a program perspective. These findings highlight ongoing challenges with educating and engaging those at high risk for lung cancer in LCS. Program resources should be directed toward increasing adherence to LCS among eligible patients.

Feasibility of Single - Encounter Telemedicine Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study in an Underserved Population.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 forced a delay of non-essential health services, including lung cancer screening. Our institution developed a single-encounter, telemedicine (SET) lung cancer screening whereby patients receive low-dose CT in-person, but counseling regarding results, coordination of follow-up care and smoking cessation is delivered using telemedicine. This study compares outcomes of SET lung cancer screening to our pre-COVID, single-visit, in-person (SIP) lung cancer screening. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed we recorded independent variables of gender, race/ethnicity, age, educational attainment, smoking status and dependent variables including cancer diagnosis, stage and treatment between March 2019 to July 2021. Using retrospective analysis, we compared outcomes of SIP lung cancer screening before COVID-19 and SET lung cancer screening amid COVID-19. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in number of patients screened pre- and amid COVID-19.673 people were screened via SIP, while only 440 were screened via SET. SIP screening consisted of 52.5% Black/African American patients, which decreased to 37% with SET lung cancer screening. There was no significant difference in gender, age, or educational attainment. There was also no significant difference in Lung-RADS score between the 2 methods of screening or diagnostic procedures performed. Ultimately telemedicine based screening diagnosed fewer cancers, 1.6% diagnosed via telemedicine vs 3.3% screened by in person. CONCLUSION: We implemented SET lung cancer screening to continue lung cancer screening during a global pandemic. Our study established feasibility of telemedicine-based lung cancer screening among our predominantly African American/Black population, though fewer patients were screened. We found no difference in distribution between age, or educational attainment suggesting other factors discouraging lung cancer screening amid COVID-19.

Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Hospital: Rare Harms Inform Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) decreases lung cancer mortality; however, screening benefits and harms are poorly described in minority populations. Our purpose is to report benefits and harms of LCS implemented in a safety-net institution. Because harms are rare, there is a paucity of clinical experience guiding shared decision making (SDM) with diverse populations. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of patients undergoing LCS between September 2014 and March 2019 with 2-year follow-up. LDCT results, lung cancer diagnosis, stage, treatment, false-positive results, false-negative procedure from a false-positive result, complication from procedures, and death were recorded. Patient cases highlighting the challenges of delivering LCS to an underserved population were evaluated in the context of current evidence. RESULTS: Among the 995 patients who underwent screening, 54.9% were African American, with 2.9% receiving a cancer diagnosis, a false-positive rate of 9.4% and a 0.7% rate of procedures resulting from a false-positive result. Five patient cases highlight challenges, namely (1) false-positive result resulting in operation, (2) false-negative result, (3) incidental finding, (4) delay in diagnosis, and (5) death from cause other than lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: LCS of a predominantly African American population with 2-year follow-up demonstrates early detection and treatment of lung cancer with few harms. Although rare, harms must be clearly described with population-specific evidence. We report clinical perspective of rare harms that can provide guidance to providers and patients.