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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lung cancer screening at the VA: Past, present and future.

Lung cancer is responsible for more deaths annually in the United States than breast, prostate and colon cancers combined. Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients through early detection. The incidence of lung cancer is higher in the veteran population compared to the general population due, in part, to the prevalence of tobacco use. Early detection of lung cancer is therefore an important goal of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the United States. The following will review previous and current initiatives undertaken by the VHA to implement and expand access to lung cancer screening and will highlight target areas of interest to improve uptake and quality of lung cancer screening. Through these initiatives and programs, the VHA aims to provide high quality and equitable access to lung cancer screening for all Veterans that incorporates research that will improve outcomes and potentially inform and optimize the practice of Lung cancer screening across the United States.

An Evaluation of Annual Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in a Large National Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening reduces mortality in large RCTs where adherence is high. Unfortunately, recently published adherence rates do not replicate those seen in trials. Previous publications support a centralized approach to ensure patient eligibility and improve adherence. METHODS: Investigators reviewed a large, geographically diverse cohort of patients from 14 health systems, with 73 centers across the U.S. Lung cancer screening patients were screened from 2015 to 2019 and tracked utilizing a commercial system. Data were analyzed in 2019-2021. Demographics, eligibility, imaging results, and cancer diagnosis were collected. Overall return was calculated for 2 years (Time 0-Time 1 and Time 1-Time 2) on the basis of follow-up through March 31, 2020. Only U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-eligible patients with a normal or benign result (Lung-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2) at baseline (Time 0) were included in annual adherence calculations. RESULTS: A total of 30,166 patients were screened; 50% were male, with a mean age of 65 years. Most individuals currently smoked (58.3%), with an average of 48.3 pack years. A total of 58% were White, 6% were Black, and 34% had race information unavailable. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria were not met by 10.6%. Of the 26,958 patients eligible at baseline, 76% were Lung-Reporting and Data System 1 or 2. Annual adherence at Year 1 (Time 0-Time 1) was 48.4%. Adherence at Year 2 (Time 1-Time 2) was 44.4%. A total of 93 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force‒eligible patients were diagnosed with lung cancers, mostly during the first annual follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort screened and managed primarily using a commercial tracking platform, most patients were U.S. Preventive Services Task Force eligible. However, annual adherence was poor despite this resource, suggesting that additional interventions are needed to recognize the full mortality benefit from screening programs.

Guideline-Recommended Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Is Superior With a Centralized Approach.

BACKGROUND: To recognize fully the benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS), annual adherence must approach the high levels seen in the National Lung Screening Trial. Emerging data suggest that annual adherence is poor and that a centralized approach to screening improves adherence. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Do differences in adherence exist between a centralized and decentralized approach to LCS within a hybrid program and what are predictors of adherence? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of a single-center hybrid LCS program was conducted to compare outcomes including patient eligibility and adherence between the centralized and decentralized approaches. Patient demographics and outcomes were compared between those screened with a centralized and decentralized approach and between adherent and nonadherent patients using two-sample t tests, χ 2 tests, or analyses of variance, as appropriate. Annual adherence analysis was conducted using data from patients who remained eligible for screening with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between adherence and the primary exposure, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: A cohort of 1,117 patients underwent baseline low-dose CT imaging. Two hundred eleven patients (19%) were ineligible by United States Preventative Services Task Force criteria and most (90%) were screened with the decentralized approach. After exclusions, 765 patients with Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 remained eligible for annual screening. Overall adherence was 56%; however, adherence in the centralized program was 70%, compared with 41% with the decentralized approach (P < .001). Individuals screened in a decentralized approach were 73% less likely to be adherent (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.37). A greater proportion of patients with three or more comorbidities were screened outside the centralized program. INTERPRETATION: Those screened using a centralized approach were more likely to meet eligibility criteria for LCS and more likely to return for annual screening than those screened using a decentralized approach.

Mediastinal Staging for Lung Cancer.

Mediastinal lymph node staging in the setting of known or suspected lung cancer is supported by multiple professional societies as standard for high-quality care, yet proper mediastinal staging often is lacking. Neglecting pathologic lymph node sampling can understage or overstage the patient and lead to inappropriate treatment. Although some cases of nodal disease are radiographically obvious, others are not as apparent, and both situations require pathologic proof to allow for appropriate treatment selection. This article discusses the nuances of mediastinal staging and emphasizes the usefulness of a multidisciplinary approach and dialog to address lung cancer staging and treatment. We summarize the relevant guidelines and literature and provide a case scenario to illustrate the approach to mediastinal staging from our viewpoints as a thoracic surgeon and pulmonologist.

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.

Association of Cigarette Type and Nicotine Dependence in Patients Presenting for Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Over decades, there have been several alterations to cigarettes, including the addition of filters and flavoring. However, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. RESEARCH QUESTION: The aim of this study was to examine the association of type of cigarette on nicotine dependence in the setting of lung cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the National Lung Screening Trial. Tobacco dependence was evaluated by using the FagerstrÓ§m Test for Nicotine Dependence, the Heaviness of Smoking Index, and time to first cigarette. Clinical outcomes, including nicotine dependence and tobacco abstinence, were assessed with descriptive statistics and χ2 tests, stratified according to cigarette tar level, flavor, and filter. Logistic regression was used to study the influence of variables on smoking abstinence. RESULTS: More than one-third of individuals presenting for lung cancer screening are highly addicted to nicotine and smoke within 5 min of waking up. Smokers of unfiltered cigarettes were more nicotine dependent compared with filtered cigarette smokers (OR, 1.32; P < .01). Although smokers of light/ultralight cigarettes had lower dependence (OR, 0.76, P < .0001), there was no difference in smoking abstinence compared with regular cigarette smokers. There was no difference in outcomes when comparing smokers of menthol vs unflavored cigarettes. INTERPRETATION: In a screening population, the type of cigarette smoked is associated with different levels of dependence. Eliciting type of cigarette and time to first cigarette has the potential to allow for tailored tobacco treatment interventions within this context.

Approaches to lung nodule risk assessment: clinician intuition versus prediction models.

Pulmonary nodules are increasingly identified on imaging exams performed for a number of clinical presentations and can pose a diagnostic problem for clinicians. Guideline-directed management algorithms are structured on nodule pre-test probability of malignancy. The risk of malignancy can be clinician-assigned or calculated utilizing validated risk prediction calculators. Once pre-test probability of cancer is estimated, nodule management options range from a conservative approach with serial imaging to more invasive measures including biopsy procedures or surgical resection. Here we review pulmonary nodule management with a focus on methods for assigning malignancy risk and highlight novel ways currently under active research to improve nodule risk assessment and management.

Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. RESULTS: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Screening Adherence in the Veterans Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to annual low-dose CT was 95% in the National Lung Screening Trial and must be replicated to achieve mortality benefit from screening. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do we determine adherence rates within the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project and identify factors predictive of adherence? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A secondary data analysis of the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project that was conducted at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers was performed to determine adherence to follow up imaging and to determine factors predictive of adherence. RESULTS: A total of 2,103 patients were screened. The adherence to screening from baseline scan (T0) to first follow-up scan (T1) was 82.2% and 65.2% from T1 to second follow-up scan (T2). Logistic regression modeling showed that presence of a nodule and the site of lung cancer screening were predictive of adherence. After three rounds of screening, 1,343 patients (64%) who underwent baseline screening underwent both subsequent annual low-dose CT scans; 225 patients (11%) had only one subsequent low-dose CT; 0.4% did not have a T1 scan but did have a T2 scan; 70 patients (3%) died, and 36 patients (1.7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. There was significant variation in screening adherence across the eight sites, which ranged from 63% to 94% at T1 and 52% to 82% at T2 (P < .05). INTERPRETATION: Despite a centralized program design with dedicated navigator and registry to assist with adherence to annual lung cancer screening, variations between sites suggest that active follow-up strategies are needed to optimize adherence. For the mortality benefit from lung cancer screening to be recognized, adherence to annual screening must achieve higher rates.