Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer.

Importance: The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship. Objective: To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

Utilization of Diagnostic Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine utilization patterns of diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening among participants enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial. METHODS: Using a sample of National Lung Screening Trial participants with abstracted medical records, we assessed utilization of imaging, invasive, and surgical procedures after lung cancer screening. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. For each procedure type, we examined utilization within a year after the screening or until the next screen, whichever came first, across arms (low-dose CT [LDCT] versus chest X-ray [CXR]) and by screening results. We also explored factors associated with having these procedures using multivariable negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: After baseline screening, our sample had 176.5 and 46.7 procedures per 100 person-years for those with a false-positive and negative result, respectively. Invasive and surgical procedures were relatively infrequent. Among those who screened positive, follow-up imaging and invasive procedures were 25% and 34% less frequent in those screened with LDCT, compared with CXR. Postscreening utilization of invasive and surgical procedures was 37% and 34% lower at the first incidence screen compared with baseline. Participants with positive results at baseline were six times more likely to undergo additional imaging than those with normal findings. DISCUSSION: Use of imaging and invasive procedures to evaluate abnormal findings varied by screening modality, with a lower rate for LDCT than CXR. Invasive and surgical workup were less prevalent after subsequent screening examinations compared with baseline screening. Utilization was associated with older age but not gender, race or ethnicity, insurance status, or income.

Impact of Neck PET/CT Positivity on Survival Outcomes-Visual and Quantitative Assessment: Results From ACRIN 6685.

INTRODUCTION: FDG PET/CT was prospectively studied in 287 cN0 head and neck cancer patients in ACRIN 6685, and additional analysis of neck FDG uptake upon recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eight had analyzable data. Survival analysis was performed to compare RFS and OS based on neck FDG visual assessment (VA) and SUV max . For SUV max , the optimal thresholds were calculated using conditional inference trees on a randomly selected 70% training data set and validated using the remaining 30% of data. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests were generated for the patient groups based on VA and optimal SUV max thresholds, and the hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also calculated. Hypothesis testing was set at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 73.9% of bilateral cN0 and 50.0% of unilateral cN0 were alive at the end of the study with the remaining being dead or lost to follow-up. Overall survival median follow-up time was 24.0 months (interquartile range, 15.8-25.3; range, 0-37.0). A total of 63.3% of bilateral cN0 and 42.5% of unilateral cN0 patients remained disease free during the study. Recurrence-free survival median follow-up time was 23.9 months (interquartile range, 12.4-25.2; range, 0-35.6). Visual assessment of necks by our panel of radiologists was significantly associated with RFS (HR [95% CI], 2.30 [1.10-4.79]; P = 0.02), but not with OS (HR [95% CI], 1.64 [0.86-3.14]; P = 0.13). The optimal SUV max thresholds were 2.5 for RFS and 5.0 for OS. For SUV max assessment, applying the optimal thresholds to the 30% test data yielded HRs (95% CIs) of 2.09 (0.61-7.14; P = 0.23) for RFS and 3.42 (1.03-11.41; P = 0.03) for OS. The SUV max threshold of 5.0 was significantly associated with RFS (HR [95% CI], 5.92 [1.79-19.57]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neck FDG uptake by VA is significant for RFS. An SUV max threshold of 5.0 is significantly associated with OS and RFS.

Study protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0].

BACKGROUND: Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

FDG-PET/CT and Pathology in Newly Diagnosed Head and Neck Cancer: ACRIN 6685 Trial, FDG-PET/CT cN0.

OBJECTIVE: FDG-PET/CT (fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography) is effective to assess for occult neck nodal disease. We report risks and patterns of nodal disease based on primary site and nodal level from data on the dissected cN0 per the results from ACRIN 6685. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized enrollment included participants with first-time head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and at least 1 cN0 neck side to be dissected. SETTING: Twenty-four ACRIN-certified centers internationally (American College of Radiology Imaging Network). METHODS: A total of 287 participants were enrolled. Preoperative FDG-PET/CT findings were centrally reviewed and compared with pathology. Incidence, relative risk, pattern of lymph node involvement, and impact upon neck dissection were reported. RESULTS: An overall 983 nodal levels were dissected (n = 261 necks, n = 203 participants). The highest percentages of ipsilateral positive nodes by primary location and nodal level were oral cavity (level I, 17/110, 15.5%), pharynx (level II, 6/30, 20.0%), and larynx (level VI, 1/3, 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Levels at greatest risk for nodal disease in cN0 in terms of ipsilateral neck dissection are level I (oral cavity), II (pharynx), and VI (larynx). These data should be considered when treating patients presenting with cN0. This is the first study to comprehensively report the incidence, location, and risk of metastases in cN0 in the FDG-PET/CT era.

Micronodules Detected on Computed Tomography During the National Lung Screening Trial: Prevalence and Relation to Positive Studies and Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) all cases with a 4-mm nodule (micronodule) and no other findings were classified as a negative study. The prevalence and malignant potential of micronodules in the NLST is evaluated to understand if this classification was appropriate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the NLST a total of 53,452 participants were enrolled with 26,722 undergoing low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening. To determine whether a micronodule developed into a lung cancer, a list from the NLST database of those participants who developed lung cancer and had a micronodule recorded was selected. The CT images of this subset were reviewed by experienced, fellowship-trained thoracic radiologists (R.F.M., C.C., P.M.B., and D.R.A.), all of whom participated as readers in the NLST. RESULTS: There were 26,722 participants who underwent CT in the NLST, of which 11,326 (42%) participants had at least one CT with a micronodule. Five thousand five hundred sixty (49%) of these participants had at least one positive CT examination, of which 409 (3.6%) subsequently were diagnosed with lung cancer. Of the 409 lung cancer cases with a micronodule recorded, there were 13 cases in which a micronodule developed into lung cancer. Considering the 13 cases, they represent 1.2% (13 of 1089) of the lung cancers diagnosed in the CT arm of the NLST and 0.11% (13 of 11,326) of the total micronodule cases. Additionally they represent 0.23% (13 of 5560) of the micronodule and at least one positive CT examination cases and 3.2% (13 of 409) of the micronodule cases diagnosed with lung cancer. The average size of the nodule at baseline (recorded as maximum diameter by perpendicular diameter) was 3.0 × 2.5 mm (ranges 2 x 4 mm and 2 x 4 mm) and at the positive CT the nodule was 11.1 × 8.6 mm (ranges, 6 x 20 mm and 5 x 14 mm); a difference of average change in size of 8.1 × 6.1 mm. The average number of days from first CT with a micronodule recorded to positive CT was 459 days (range, 338 - 723 days), the mean time from first CT with micronodule to lung cancer diagnosis was 617 days (range, 380 - 1140 days) and the mean time from positive CT to lung cancer diagnosis was 160 days (range, 18 - 417 days). Histologically, there was one small cell carcinoma and 12 non-small cell with stages of IA in 8 (62%), stage IB in 2 (15%), and 1 each stage IIIA, IIIB, and IV. The overall survival of NSCLC cases with a micronodule was not significantly different than the survival of the CT subset diagnosed with NSCL (p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Micronodules are common among lung cancer-screened participants and are capable of developing into lung cancer; however, following micronodules by annual CT screening surveillance is appropriate and does not impact overall survival or outcome.

Lung Cancer Screening in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program: Availability and Service Organization.

PURPOSE: Annual low-dose CT (LDCT) for lung screening in high-risk individuals decreases both lung cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Community oncology practice networks constituting the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) conduct clinical trials across the cancer spectrum. The authors report access to and characteristics of LDCT screening for lung cancer in these community oncology practices. METHODS: A landscape capacity assessment was conducted in 2017 across the NCORP network. The primary outcome was the proportion of adult oncology practice groups offering LDCT lung screening on site. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of those screening services (1) with radiologist participation in service management and (2) offered at ACR Designated Lung Cancer Screening Centers. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of components and subcomponents responded to at least some portion of the assessment, representing 217 practice groups. Analyzing the 211 adult oncology practice groups responding to the primary question, 73% offered lung screening services on site. Radiologists participated in managing 69% of these services. Forty-seven percent were offered in ACR Designated Lung Cancer Screening Centers. Minority and underserved practice groups were less likely to offer lung screening; however, this association dissipated when analyses focused on practices within the United States. Safety net and Critical Access Hospital designation increased the likelihood of screening availability. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of community oncology practice groups within the NCORP offered lung screening on site, although radiologist participation in service management and ACR Lung Cancer Screening Center designation, markers of service quality, were more variable.

Multicenter Trial of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Staging of Head and Neck Cancer and Negative Predictive Value and Surgical Impact in the N0 Neck: Results From ACRIN 6685.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for the clinically N0 neck on the basis of neck dissection. METHODS: Participants with newly diagnosed, first-time, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and at least one clinically N0 neck side for which dissection was planned were included. A total of 287 participants were prospectively enrolled from 23 American College of Radiology Imaging Network-qualified institutions. PET/CT was compared with findings at neck dissection. RESULTS: PET/CT scans and pathology findings were available for 270 N0 neck sides from 212 participants. For visual assessment, the NPV specific to the clinical-N0 sides was 0.868 (95% CI, 0.803 to 0.925). For dichotomized maximum standardized uptake value, the NPVs specific to the nodal basins were 0.940 (95% CI, 0.928 to 0.952) and 0.937 (95% CI, 0.925 to 0.949) at prespecified cutoffs of 2.5 and 3.5, respectively. The optimal cutoff maximum standardized uptake value was determined to be 1.8, with an NPV of 0.942 (95% CI, 0.930 to 0.953). The PET/CT-informed surgical treatment plan was changed in 51 of 237 participants (22%) compared with the PET/CT-blinded surgical plan. In 34 participants (14%), this led to planned dissection of additional nodal levels. In 12 participants (5%), this led to fewer planned dissected nodal levels. Negative PET/CT scans in N0 necks was true negative in 87% and false negative in 13%. CONCLUSION: [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT has high NPV for the N0 neck in T2 to T4 HNSCC. The surgical treatment plans on the basis of PET/CT findings may be changed in approximately 22% of this group. These findings suggest that [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT may assist the clinician in deciding on the best therapy for the clinically N0 neck in HNSCC. Well-designed clinical trials should be performed to test the outcome of omitting neck dissection by using PET/CT.

Medical Care Costs Were Similar Across the Low-dose Computed Tomography and Chest X-Ray Arms of the National Lung Screening Trial Despite Different Rates of Significant Incidental Findings.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported lung cancer and all-cause mortality reductions for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x-ray (CXR) screening. Although LDCT lung screening has received a grade B from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and is a covered service under most health plans, concerns remain on the costs engendered by screening, and the impact of the high rate of significant incidental finding (SIF) detection on those costs. METHODS: We linked American College of Radiology Imaging Network NLST and Medicare fee-for-service claims data for participants from 23 sites for 2002-2009. We performed participant-level analyses using generalized linear regression models to estimate the adjusted annual mean of the 3-year total medical costs per person in each study arm and within screen outcome categories (ever positive with abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, always negative for abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, but with SIFs, and always negative without SIFs). RESULTS: The adjusted annual mean total per person costs were not significantly different between screening arms [LDCT, $11,029 (95% confidence interval, $10,107-$11,951); CXR, $10,905 (95% confidence interval, $10,059-$11,751)], despite higher proportions of individuals with SIFs in the LDCT versus the CXR arm (18% vs. 4%; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found little difference in total annual per person costs between LDCT-screened and CXR-screened Medicare participants, despite the higher number of SIFs in the LDCT arm of the study.

Capacity for Cancer Care Delivery Research in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Community Practices: Availability of Radiology and Primary Care Research Partners.

PURPOSE: Cancer care spans the spectrum from screening and diagnosis through therapy and into survivorship. Delivering appropriate care requires patient transitions across multiple specialties, such as primary care, radiology, and oncology. From the program's inception, the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites were tasked with conducting cancer care delivery research (CCDR) that evaluates structural, organizational, and social factors, including care transitions that determine patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe the capacity of the NCORP to conduct multidisciplinary CCDR that includes radiology and primary care practices. METHODS: The NCORP includes 34 community and 12 minority and underserved community sites. The Landscape Capacity Assessment was conducted in 2015 across these 46 sites, composed of the 401 components and subcomponents designated to conduct CCDR. Each respondent had the opportunity to designate an operational practice group, defined as a group of components and subcomponents with common care practices and resources. The primary outcomes were the proportion of adult oncology practice groups with affiliated radiology and primary care practices. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of those affiliated radiology and primary care groups that participate in research. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of components and subcomponents responded to at least some portion of the assessment, representing 230 practice groups. Analyzing the 201 adult oncology practice groups, 85% had affiliated radiologists, 69% of whom participate in research. Seventy-nine percent had affiliated primary care practitioners, 31% of whom participate in research. Institutional size, multidisciplinary group practice, and ownership by large regional or multistate health systems was associated with research participation by affiliated radiology and primary care groups. Research participation by these affiliated specialists was not significantly different between the community and the minority and underserved community sites. CONCLUSIONS: Research relationships exist between the majority of community oncology sites and affiliated radiology practices. Research relationships with affiliated primary care practices lagged. NCORP as a whole has the opportunity to encourage continued and expanded engagement where relationships exist. Where no relationship exists, the NCORP can encourage recruitment, particularly of primary care practices as partners.

The Relations Between False Positive and Negative Screens and Smoking Cessation and Relapse in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for Public Health.

INTRODUCTION: Lung screening is an opportunity for smoking cessation and relapse prevention, but smoking behaviors may differ across screening results. Changes in smoking were evaluated among 18 840 current and former smokers aged 55-74 scheduled to receive three annual lung screenings. METHODS: Participants were randomized to low-dose computed tomography or single-view chest radiography in the American College of Radiology/National Lung Screening Trial. Outcome measures included point and sustained (6-month) abstinence and motivation to quit among smokers; and relapse among smokers who quit during follow-up, recent quitters (quit < 6 months), and long-term former smokers (quit ≥ 6 months). RESULTS: During five years of follow-up, annual point prevalence quit rates ranged from 11.6%-13.4%; 48% of current smokers reported a quit attempt and 7% of long-term former smokers relapsed. Any false positive screening result was associated with subsequent increased point (multivariable hazard ratio HR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.35) and sustained (HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.15, 1.43) abstinence among smokers. Recent quitters with ≥1 false positive screen were less likely to relapse (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.54, 0.96). Screening result was not associated with relapse among long-term former smokers or among baseline smokers who quit during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A false positive screen was associated with increased smoking cessation and less relapse among recent quitters. Consistently negative screens were not associated with greater relapse among long-term former smokers. Given the Affordable Care Act requires most health plans to cover smoking cessation and lung screening, the impact and cost-effectiveness of lung screening could be further enhanced with the addition of smoking cessation interventions.

Racial Differences in Tobacco Cessation and Treatment Usage After Lung Screening: An Examination of the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Black smokers have demonstrated greater lung cancer disease burden and poorer smoking cessation outcomes compared with whites. Lung cancer screening represents a unique opportunity to promote cessation among smokers; however, little is known about the differential impact of screening on smoking behaviors among black and white smokers. Using data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), we examined the racial differences in smoking behaviors after screening. METHODS: We examined racial differences in smoking behavior and cessation activity among 6,316 white and 497 black (median age, 60 and 59 years, respectively) NLST participants who were current smokers at screening using a follow-up survey on 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts, 6-month continuous abstinence, and the use of smoking cessation programs and aids at 12 months after screening. Using multiple regression analyses, we examined the predictors of 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts and 6-month continuous abstinence. RESULTS: At 12 months after screening, blacks were more likely to report a 24-hour (52.7% vs. 41.2%, p < .0001) or 7-day (33.6% vs. 27.2%, p = .002) quit attempt. However, no significant racial differences were found in 6-month continuous abstinence (5.6% blacks vs. 7.2% whites). In multiple regression, black race was predictive of a higher likelihood of a 24-hour (odds ratio [OR], 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.0) and 7-day (OR, 1.5, 95% CI, 1.1-1.8) quit attempt; however, race was not associated with 6-month continuous abstinence. Only a positive screening result for lung cancer was significantly predictive of successful 6-month continuous abstinence (OR, 2.3, 95% CI, 1.8-2.9). CONCLUSION: Although blacks were more likely than whites to have 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts, the rates of 6-month continuous abstinence did not differ. Targeted interventions are needed at the time of lung cancer screening to promote abstinence among all smokers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Among smokers undergoing screening for lung cancer, blacks were more likely than whites to have 24-hour and 7-day quit attempts; however, these attempts did not translate to increased rates of 6-month continuous abstinence among black smokers. Targeted interventions are needed at the time of lung cancer screening to convert quit attempts to sustained smoking cessation among all smokers.

Primary Care Provider-Delivered Smoking Cessation Interventions and Smoking Cessation Among Participants in the National Lung Screening Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening. RESULTS: Delivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Assist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.

Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST. METHODS: We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions. RESULTS: As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,557 to 1,709) and provided an additional 0.0316 life-years per person (95% CI, 0.0154 to 0.0478) and 0.0201 QALYs per person (95% CI, 0.0088 to 0.0314). The corresponding ICERs were $52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and $81,000 per QALY gained (95% CI, 52,000 to 186,000). However, the ICERs varied widely in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost $81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Screening for lung cancer has the potential to reduce mortality, but in addition to detecting aggressive tumors, screening will also detect indolent tumors that otherwise may not cause clinical symptoms. These overdiagnosis cases represent an important potential harm of screening because they incur additional cost, anxiety, and morbidity associated with cancer treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate overdiagnosis in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used data from the NLST, a randomized trial comparing screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) vs chest radiography (CXR) among 53 452 persons at high risk for lung cancer observed for 6.4 years, to estimate the excess number of lung cancers in the LDCT arm of the NLST compared with the CXR arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We calculated 2 measures of overdiagnosis: the probability that a lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT is an overdiagnosis (PS), defined as the excess lung cancers detected by LDCT divided by all lung cancers detected by screening in the LDCT arm; and the number of cases that were considered overdiagnosis relative to the number of persons needed to screen to prevent 1 death from lung cancer. RESULTS: During follow-up, 1089 lung cancers were reported in the LDCT arm and 969 in the CXR arm of the NLST. The probability is 18.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-30.6%) that any lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT was an overdiagnosis, 22.5% (95% CI, 9.7%-34.3%) that a non-small cell lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis, and 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2%-93.5%) that a bronchioalveolar lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis. The number of cases of overdiagnosis found among the 320 participants who would need to be screened in the NLST to prevent 1 death from lung cancer was 1.38. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: More than 18% of all lung cancers detected by LDCT in the NLST seem to be indolent, and overdiagnosis should be considered when describing the risks of LDCT screening for lung cancer.

Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the largest contributor to mortality from cancer. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) rather than with chest radiography reduced mortality from lung cancer. We describe the screening, diagnosis, and limited treatment results from the initial round of screening in the NLST to inform and improve lung-cancer-screening programs. METHODS: At 33 U.S. centers, from August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled asymptomatic participants, 55 to 74 years of age, with a history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking. The participants were randomly assigned to undergo annual screening, with the use of either low-dose CT or chest radiography, for 3 years. Nodules or other suspicious findings were classified as positive results. This article reports findings from the initial screening examination. RESULTS: A total of 53,439 eligible participants were randomly assigned to a study group (26,715 to low-dose CT and 26,724 to chest radiography); 26,309 participants (98.5%) and 26,035 (97.4%), respectively, underwent screening. A total of 7191 participants (27.3%) in the low-dose CT group and 2387 (9.2%) in the radiography group had a positive screening result; in the respective groups, 6369 participants (90.4%) and 2176 (92.7%) had at least one follow-up diagnostic procedure, including imaging in 5717 (81.1%) and 2010 (85.6%) and surgery in 297 (4.2%) and 121 (5.2%). Lung cancer was diagnosed in 292 participants (1.1%) in the low-dose CT group versus 190 (0.7%) in the radiography group (stage 1 in 158 vs. 70 participants and stage IIB to IV in 120 vs. 112). Sensitivity and specificity were 93.8% and 73.4% for low-dose CT and 73.5% and 91.3% for chest radiography, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NLST initial screening results are consistent with the existing literature on screening by means of low-dose CT and chest radiography, suggesting that a reduction in mortality from lung cancer is achievable at U.S. screening centers that have staff experienced in chest CT. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Examining whether lung screening changes risk perceptions: National Lung Screening Trial participants at 1-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) research team reported reduced lung cancer mortality among current and former smokers with a minimum 30 pack-year history who were screened with spiral computed tomography scans compared with chest x-rays. The objectives of the current study were to examine, at 1-year follow-up: 1) risk perceptions of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases and behavior change determinants, 2) whether changes in risk perceptions differed by baseline screening result; and 3) whether changes in risk perceptions affected smoking behavior. METHODS: A 25-item risk perception questionnaire was administered to a subset of participants at 8 American College of Radiology Imaging Network/NLST sites before initial and 1-year follow-up screens. Items assessed risk perceptions of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, cognitive and emotional determinants of behavior change, and knowledge of smoking risks. RESULTS: Among 430 NLST participants (mean age, 61.0 years; 55.6% men; 91.9% white), half were current smokers at baseline. Overall, risk perceptions and associated cognitive and emotional determinants of behavior change did not change significantly from prescreen trial enrollment to 1-year follow-up and did not differ significantly by screening test result. Changes in risk perceptions were not associated with changes in smoking status (9.7% of participants quit, and 6.6% relapsed) at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Lung screening did not change participants' risk perceptions of lung cancer or smoking-related disease. A negative screening test, which was the most common screening result, did not appear to decrease risk perceptions nor provide false reassurance to smokers.

Identifying and collecting pertinent medical records for centralized abstraction in a multi-center randomized clinical trial: the model used by the American College of Radiology arm of the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and epidemiologic studies, information on medical care utilization and health outcomes is often obtained from medical records. For multi-center studies, this information may be gathered by personnel at individual sites or by staff at a central coordinating center. We describe the process used to develop a HIPAA-compliant centralized process to collect medical record information for a large multi-center cancer screening trial. METHODS: The framework used to select, request, and track medical records incorporated a participant questionnaire with unique identifiers for each medical provider. De-identified information from the questionnaires was sent to the coordinating center indexed by these identifiers. The central coordinating center selected specific medical providers for abstraction and notified sites using these identifiers. The site personnel then linked the identifiers with medical provider information. Staff at the sites collected medical records and provided them for central abstraction. RESULTS: Medical records were successfully obtained and abstracted to ascertain information on outcomes and health care utilization in a study with over 18,000 study participants. Collection of records required for outcomes related to positive screening examinations and lung cancer diagnosis exceeded 90%. Collection of records for all aims was 87.32%. CONCLUSIONS: We designed a successful centralized medical record abstraction process that may be generalized to other research settings, including observational studies. The coordinating center received no identifying data. The process satisfied requirements imposed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and concerns of site institutional review boards with respect to protected health information.

Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

BACKGROUND: The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer. METHODS: From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. RESULTS: The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Population-based study of the relationship between patent foramen ovale and cerebrovascular ischemic events.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a risk factor for a cryptogenic cerebrovascular ischemic event (CIE). METHODS: This case-control study of 1072 residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who underwent contrast transesophageal echocardiography between 1993 and 1997 included 519 controls without CIE randomly selected from the population, 262 controls without CIE referred for transesophageal echocardiography because of cardiac disease, 158 cases with incident CIE of obvious cause (noncryptogenic), and 133 cases with incident CIE of uncertain cause (cryptogenic). RESULTS: Large PFOs were detected in 108 randomly selected controls (20.8%), 22 referred controls (8.4%), 17 noncryptogenic CIE cases (10.8%), and 22 cryptogenic CIE cases (16.5%). After adjustment for age, sex, hypertension, smoking, atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, and number of contrast injections, the presence of a large PFO was not significantly associated with group status (P=.07). Using the odds of the presence of large PFO in the randomly selected controls as the reference, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of the presence of large PFO was 0.47 (0.26-0.87) for referred controls, 0.69 (0.37-1.29) for noncryptogenic CIE cases, and 1.10 (0.63-1.90) for cryptogenic CIE cases. CONCLUSIONS: Patent foramen ovale is not a risk factor for cryptogenic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in the general population. The PFO's importance in the genesis of cryptogenic CIE may have been overestimated in previous studies because of selective referral of cases and underascertainment of PFO among comparison groups of patients referred for echocardiography for clinical indications other than cryptogenic CIE.