Individual- and neighborhood-level characteristics of lung cancer screening participants undergoing telemedicine shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Although lung cancer screening (LCS) for high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality in clinical trial settings, many questions remain about how to implement high-quality LCS in real-world programs. With the increasing use of telemedicine in healthcare, studies examining this approach in the context of LCS are urgently needed. We aimed to identify sociodemographic and other factors associated with screening completion among individuals undergoing telemedicine Shared Decision Making (SDM) for LCS. METHODS: This retrospective study examined patients who completed Shared Decision Making (SDM) via telemedicine between May 4, 2020 - March 18, 2021 in a centralized LCS program. Individuals were categorized into Complete Screening vs. Incomplete Screening subgroups based on the status of subsequent LDCT completion. A multi-level, multivariate model was constructed to identify factors associated with incomplete screening. RESULTS: Among individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM during the study period, 20.6% did not complete a LDCT scan. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that Black/African-American race, Medicaid insurance status, and new patient type were associated with greater odds of incomplete screening. On multi-level, multivariate analysis, individuals who were new patients undergoing baseline LDCT or resided in a census tract with a high level of socioeconomic deprivation had significantly higher odds of incomplete screening. Individuals with a greater level of education experienced lower odds of incomplete screening. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk individuals undergoing telemedicine SDM for LCS, predictors of incomplete screening included low education, high neighborhood-level deprivation, and new patient type. Future research should focus on testing implementation strategies to improve LDCT completion rates while leveraging telemedicine for high-quality LCS.

The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community: a multi-health-system, citywide approach to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening uptake for individuals at high risk is generally low across the United States, and reporting of lung cancer screening practices and outcomes is often limited to single hospitals or institutions. We describe a citywide, multicenter analysis of individuals receiving lung cancer screening integrated with geospatial analyses of neighborhood-level lung cancer risk factors. METHODS: The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community consists of lung cancer screening clinicians and researchers at the 3 largest health systems in the city. This multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team identified a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community study cohort that included 11 222 Philadelphia residents who underwent low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening from 2014 to 2021 at a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community health-care system. Individual-level demographic and clinical data were obtained, and lung cancer screening participants were geocoded to their Philadelphia census tract of residence. Neighborhood characteristics were integrated with lung cancer screening counts to generate bivariate choropleth maps. RESULTS: The combined sample included 37.8% Black adults, 52.4% women, and 56.3% adults who currently smoke. Of 376 residential census tracts in Philadelphia, 358 (95.2%) included 5 or more individuals undergoing lung cancer screening, and the highest counts were geographically clustered around each health system's screening sites. A relatively low percentage of screened adults resided in census tracts with high tobacco retailer density or high smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The sociodemographic characteristics of lung cancer screening participants in Philadelphia varied by health system and neighborhood. These results suggest that a multicenter approach to lung cancer screening can identify vulnerable areas for future tailored approaches to improving lung cancer screening uptake. Future directions should use these findings to develop and test collaborative strategies to increase lung cancer screening at the community and regional levels.

Characterizing Lung Cancer Burden Among Asian-American Communities in Philadelphia.

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death among Asian-Americans. However, there are differences in LC incidence and mortality among Asian racial subgroups. The objective of this study was to describe LC burden and disparities among race/ethnic groups (White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic) across US census tracts (CT) in Philadelphia using the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry dataset (N=11,865). ArcGIS Pro was used to geocode patient addresses to the CT level for linkage to US Census data. Despite being diagnosed more frequently with advanced-stage lung cancer compared with other race and ethnic groups in Philadelphia, Asian patients were most likely to be alive at the time of data receipt. Among Asian subgroups, Korean patients were the oldest (median age 75, p=0.024). Although not statistically different, distant stage disease was the most prevalent among Asian Indian (77.8%) and Korean (73.7%) and the least prevalent among Chinese patients (49.5%). LC was the cause of death for 77.8% of Asian Indian, 63.2% of Korean, 52.9% of other Asian, 48.5% of Chinese, and 47.5% of Vietnamese patients. CTs where Asian individuals were concentrated had lower socioeconomic status and greater tobacco retailer density compared to the entire city. Compared to all of Philadelphia, heavily Asian CTs experienced a greater age-standardized LC incidence (1.48 vs. 1.42) but lower age-standardized LC mortality (1.13 vs. 1.22). Our study suggests that LC disparities exist among Asian subgroups, with Asian Indian and Korean Philadelphians most likely to present with advanced disease. Additional studies are needed to investigate LC among high-risk racial and ethnic groups, including Asian subgroups.

A Learning Community Supporting Experiential Education to Learn About Healthcare Equity Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) for healthcare equity (HCE) is an important aspect of graduate medical education (GME), but there is limited published research on educational programs teaching this topic. AIM: To describe and evaluate a novel curriculum and learning community for HCE QI. SETTING: Academic institution. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight participants: 32 learners and 16 faculty. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: This novel, longitudinal curriculum utilized a virtual hub-and-spoke learning community. Five interdepartmental teams of learners and faculty (spokes) used QI methods to address an existing institutional healthcare inequity (HCI). A team of experts (the hub) led monthly group meetings to foster the learning community and guide teams. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Retrospective pre-post curricular surveys assessed participant satisfaction, knowledge, and skills in applying QI methods to address HCIs. Response rate was 33%. The majority of participants (92.4%) reported an increase in knowledge and skills in conducting QI for HCIs. All participants reported an increased likelihood of future engagement in HCE QI. Final QI projects average QIPAT7 score was 25.8 (SD = 4.93), consistent with "meets expectations" in most categories. DISCUSSION: This program is a feasible model to teach GME learners and faculty about HCE QI and may be adopted by other institutions.

Racial difference in BMI and lung cancer diagnosis: analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The inverse relationship between BMI and lung cancer diagnosis is well defined. However, few studies have examined the racial differences in these relationships. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships amongst race, BMI, and lung cancer diagnosis using the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) data. METHODS: Multivariate regression analysis was used to analyze the BMI, race, and lung cancer diagnosis relationships. RESULTS: Among 53,452 participants in the NLST cohort, 3.9% were diagnosed with lung cancer, 43% were overweight, and 28% were obese. BMI was inversely related to lung cancer diagnosis among Whites: those overweight (aOR = .83, 95%CI = .75-.93), obese (aOR = .64, 95%CI = .56-.73) were less likely to develop lung cancer, compared to those with normal weight. These relationships were not found among African-Americans. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the inverse relationship of BMI and lung cancer risk among Whites is consistent, whereas this relationship is not significant for African-Americans. In consideration of higher lung cancer incidence among African Americans, we need to explore other unknown mechanisms explaining this racial difference.

Estimating Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening by Neighborhood in Philadelphia Using Previous and Current USPSTF Guidelines.

The National Lung Screening Trial established the benefits of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening (LCS) to identify lung cancer at earlier stages. In February 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised the eligibility recommendations to increase the number of high-risk individuals eligible for LCS and, in effect, expand screening eligibility for vulnerable populations. One strategy for facilitating LCS is to implement targeted screening in geographic areas with the greatest need. In Philadelphia, although neighborhood smoking rates have been defined, it is not known which neighborhoods have the greatest number of people eligible for LCS. In this study, the authors estimate eligibility for LCS within Philadelphia neighborhoods using both previous and current USPSTF guidelines. They used the Public Health Management Corporation's Household Health Survey from 2010, 2012, and 2015 to identify the number of people within ever-smoker groups (current every day, current occasional, and former smokers) by neighborhood in Philadelphia. Using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Cancer Supplement, they identified the percentages within ever-smoker groups that were LCS eligible using the previous and current USPSTF guidelines. Finally, they applied the percentages eligible for the ever-smoker groups from the NHIS to the numbers in these groups within Philadelphia neighborhoods. They found that the number of Philadelphians eligible for LCS increased from 41,946 to 89,231 after the revised USPSTF guidelines. The current USPSTF guidelines increased eligibility for LCS within all Philadelphia neighborhoods, with the greatest increases in the River Wards planning district. Local providers should use these results to prioritize LCS services within neighborhoods with greatest eligibility.

Frequency of Statin Prescription Among Individuals with Coronary Artery Calcifications Detected Through Lung Cancer Screening.

Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) due to smoking history. Coronary artery calcifications (CAC), a common incidental finding on low-dose CT (LDCT) for LCS, is a predictor of cardiovascular events. Despite findings of high ASCVD risk and CAC, a substantial proportion of LCS patients are not prescribed primary preventive statin therapy for ASCVD. We assessed the frequency of statin prescription in LCS patients with moderate levels of CAC. Among 259 individuals with moderate CAC, 95% had ASCVD risk ≥ 7.5%. Despite this, 27% of patients were statin-free prior to LDCT and 21.2% remained statin-free after LDCT showing moderate CAC. Illustratively, while a substantial proportion of LCS patients are statin-eligible, many lack a statin prescription, even after findings of CAC burden. CAC reporting should be standardized, and interdisciplinary communication should be optimized to ensure that LCS patients are placed on appropriate preventive therapy.

Primary Care Physician Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) supports lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for patients who undergo shared decision-making (SDM) about LCS. Unfortunately, SDM and LCS rates are low in primary care, and, as a result, the potential benefits of LCS are not being realized. The research team interviewed 16 primary care physicians in a large urban medical center (7 in Family and Community Medicine and 9 in Internal Medicine) on their views of SDM and LCS. Interview audio-recordings were transcribed. Coders analyzed the interview transcripts independently using direct content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. Results of interview analyses show that physicians were aware of LCS but believed that they and their patients would benefit from receiving more information about screening guidelines. Physicians knew about SDM and felt that SDM performance could help to identify issues that are important to patients and may affect their receptivity to LCS. However, many physicians expressed concerns about the time required for SDM and completing SDM about LCS when other issues need to be addressed. They also acknowledged the challenge of engaging patients, especially those with low health literacy, in SDM. In practice, some physicians reported instead of engaging eligible patients in SDM, they simply encourage them to screen. Importantly, most physicians said that they would like to receive training in SDM. Findings from this study indicate that primary care physicians support the dissemination of information about LCS and understand the importance of SDM. Physicians also feel that performing SDM in routine care is challenging but are receptive to additional training in SDM. Health systems should take steps to support SDM and LCS performance in primary care.

Racial Differences in Lung Cancer Screening Beliefs and Screening Adherence.

BACKGROUND: One challenge in high-quality lung cancer screening (LCS) is maintaining adherence with annual and short-interval follow-up screens among high-risk individuals who have undergone baseline low-dose CT (LDCT). This study aimed to characterize attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS and to identify factors associated with LCS adherence. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire to 269 LCS participants to assess attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS. Clinical data including sociodemographics and screening adherence were obtained from the LCS Program Registry. RESULTS: African-American individuals had significantly greater lung cancer worries compared with Whites (6.10 vs. 4.66, P < .001). In making the decision to undergo LCS, African-American participants described screening convenience and cost as very important factors significantly more frequently than Whites (60% vs. 26.8%, P< .001 and 58.4% vs. 37.8%, P = .001; respectively). African-American individuals with greater than high school education had significantly higher odds of LCS adherence (aOR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-5.60) than Whites with less than high school education. Participants who described screening convenience and cost as "very important" had significantly lower odds of completing screening follow-up after adjusting for demographic and other factors (aOR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97 and aOR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91, respectively). CONCLUSION: Racial differences in beliefs about lung cancer and LCS exist among African-American and White individuals enrolled in an LCS program. Cost, convenience, and low educational attainment may be barriers to LCS adherence, specifically among African-American individuals. IMPACT: More research is needed on how barriers can be overcome to improve LCS adherence.

Black patients referred to a lung cancer screening program experience lower rates of screening and longer time to follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities are well-documented in preventive cancer care, but they have not been fully explored in the context of lung cancer screening. We sought to explore racial differences in lung cancer screening outcomes within a lung cancer screening program (LCSP) at our urban academic medical center including differences in baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results, time to follow-up, adherence, as well as return to annual screening after additional imaging, loss to follow-up, and cancer diagnoses in patients with positive baseline scans. METHODS: A historical cohort study of patients referred to our LCSP was conducted to extract demographic and clinical characteristics, smoking history, and lung cancer screening outcomes. RESULTS: After referral to the LCSP, blacks had significantly lower odds of receiving LDCT compared to whites, even while controlling for individual lung cancer risk factors and neighborhood-level factors. Blacks also demonstrated a trend toward delayed follow-up, decreased adherence, and loss to follow-up across all Lung-RADS categories. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, lung cancer screening annual adherence rates were low, regardless of race, highlighting the need for increased patient education and outreach. Furthermore, the disparities in race we identified encourage further research with the purpose of creating culturally competent and inclusive LCSPs.

Linkage Between Poverty and Smoking in Philadelphia and Its Impact on Future Directions for Tobacco Control in the City.

Poverty is linked to negative health consequences and harmful health behaviors such as smoking. Despite this established correlation, few comparative studies have investigated the relationship between local poverty rates and smoking in urban settings through a Social Ecological Model framework. The authors sought to examine the linkage between local poverty rates in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and adult smoking rates by scrutinizing existing patterns and potential mediating factors via publicly accessible data in established planning districts. The authors determined several individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and environmental factors, varying across these districts, that impact smoking in Philadelphia. Poverty rates influence the resources, demographic makeup, and number of tobacco retailers a district has, which have downstream effects. The authors recommend that further investment is allocated to planning districts in order to mitigate the risk of smoking.

The Case for Patient Navigation in Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review.

Patient navigation has been proposed to combat cancer disparities in vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations often have poorer cancer outcomes and lower levels of screening, adherence, and treatment. Navigation has been studied in various cancers, but few studies have assessed navigation in lung cancer. Additionally, there is a lack of consistency in metrics to assess the quality of navigation programs. The authors conducted a systematic review of published cancer screening studies to identify quality metrics used in navigation programs, as well as to recommend standardized metrics to define excellence in lung cancer navigation. The authors included 26 studies evaluating navigation metrics in breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. After reviewing the literature, the authors propose the following navigation metrics for lung cancer screening programs: (1) screening rate, (2) compliance with follow-up, (3) time to treatment initiation, (4) patient satisfaction, (5) quality of life, (6) biopsy complications, and (7) cultural competency.