Adherence to annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scan in a diverse population.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to develop a novel approach for lung cancer screening among a diverse population that integrates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended components including shared decision making (SDM), low-dose CT (LDCT), reporting of results in a standardized format, smoking cessation, and arrangement of follow-up care. METHODS: Between October of 2015 and March of 2018, we enrolled patients, gathered data on demographics, delivery of SDM, reporting of LDCT results using Lung-RADS, discussion of results, and smoking cessation counseling. We measured adherence to follow-up care, cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and smoking cessation at 2 years after initial LDCT. RESULTS: We enrolled 505 patients who were 57% African American, 30% Caucasian, 13% Hispanic, < 1% Asian, and 61% were active smokers. All participants participated in SDM, 88.1% used a decision aid, and 96.1% proceeded with LDCT. Of 496 completing LDCT, all received a discussion about results and follow-up recommendations. Overall, 12.9% had Lung-RADS 3 or 4, and 3.2% were diagnosed with lung cancer resulting in a false-positive rate of 10.7%. All 48 patients with positive screens but no cancer diagnosis adhered to follow-up care at 1 year, but only 35.4% adhered to recommended follow-up care at 2 years. The annual follow-up for patients with negative lung cancer screening results (Lung-RADS 1 and 2) was only 23.7% after one year and 2.8% after 2 years. All active smokers received smoking cessation counseling, but only 11% quit smoking. CONCLUSION: The findings show that an integrated lung cancer screening program can be safely implemented in a diverse population, but adherence to annual screening is poor.

Examining Gender Differences in Lung Cancer Screening.

It is unknown if gender influences outcome of lung cancer screening with Low Dose CT (LDCT), especially with frequent and continued underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. We examined a balanced cohort of men and women with the hypothesis that there would be no difference in participation or results between men and women undergoing lung cancer screening. In an urban, academic medical center, we prospectively collected data on patients referred for lung cancer screening from October 2015 to August 2018. We studied gender, age, ethnicity, level of education and smoking history. We measured results of LDCT using Lung-RADS reporting system. 546 patients underwent LDCT between October 2015 and August 2018. 279 (51%) were female and 267 (49%) were males. Age, education status or smoking patterns did not significantly differ between females and males There was a significant difference between males and females in the distribution of LDCT results (p = 0.05). 81 females and 105 males were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 1; 99 females and 92 males with Lung-RADS 2; 15 females and 8 males with Lung-RADS 3; 19 females and 11 males with Lung-RADS 4. Overall, 10 females (3.5%) and 3 males (1.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer (risk difference 2.4, 95% CI-0.0006-0.05, p = 0.09). Women are often underrepresented in clinical trials. Preliminary results from our lung cancer screening program demonstrate equal participation and equal benefit from the screening program. Long term data is needed to study survival benefit.

Lung cancer screening in patients with Libby amphibole disease: High yield despite predominantly environmental and household exposure.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) scanning (LDCT) is accepted as a screening tool, but its application to populations exposed to recognized occupational or environmental carcinogens is limited. We apply LDCT to a population with a predominantly nonoccupational exposure to a recognized human lung carcinogen, Libby amphibole asbestos (LA). METHODS: Patients in an asbestos disease clinic in Libby, Montana who were aged 50 to 84 years, greater than or equal to 20 pack-year history of tobacco use (irrespective of quit date), and asbestos-related pleuropulmonary disease on high-resolution CT scan were offered free annual lung cancer screening over a 39-month period. RESULTS: Of 2897 clinic patients, 1149 (39.7%) met eligibility criteria, and 567 (49%) were screened with 1014 low-dose CT scans. Most screened patients had principally environmental (333 or 59%) or household exposure (145 or 25%) to LA. Seventeen primary lung cancers were identified, mostly in early stages: 10 at stage 1, two at stage 2, three at stages 3 to 4, and two at limited small-cell cancers. The screening yield was 1.9 at baseline scan and 1.5% on the first annual scan. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Association of Thoracic Surgery, LDCT for early lung cancer detection should be offered to people with significant exposure to occupational or environmental human lung carcinogens.

Harnessing Opportunity: Pilot Intervention to Improve Lung Cancer Screening for Women Undergoing Breast Screening Mammography.

Introduction: The screening mammogram could be a "teachable moment" to improve lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake. The aim of our project was to combine patient self-referral with eligibility identification by providers as a two-pronged approach to increase rates of LCS among eligible women. Methods: LCS education materials were created to stimulate patient education and encourage self-referral. Chart review of patients scheduled for screening mammography was performed to identify patients who met LCS criteria. The primary outcome was rate of acceptance of targeted interventions as measured by qualitative survey material and rate of LCS uptake. Results: Between August 2022 and August 2023, 116 patients were identified by providers for potential eligibility for LCS and 34 patients (29.3%) deemed eligible based on the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force 2021 guidelines. There were 19 patients (56%) who completed LCS with three patients (16%) with screen-detected nodules that led to further workup. Post-implementation qualitative survey results reveal that 100% of the participants rated their shared decision-making visit experience as "very helpful" and 67% responded "very likely" to seek simultaneous breast and LCS in the future. Informational materials were rated as 80% favorable among all respondents; however, the rate of self-referral alone was 0%. The combined rates of eligible patients lost to follow-up or refusal was 24%. Conclusion: The self-referral aspect of the intervention revealed that patients are unlikely to self-refer for LCS. Nevertheless, patients undergoing screening mammograms individually identified for LCS were very responsive to learning more about dual screening.

Facing an un-met need in lung cancer screening: The never smokers.

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide and the second most common cancer in both men and women. In addition to smoking, other risk factors, such as environmental tobacco smoke, air pollution, biomass combustion, radon gas, occupational exposure, lung disease, family history of cancer, geographic variability, and genetic factors, play an essential role in developing LC. Current screening guidelines and eligibility criteria have limited efficacy in identifying LC cases (50 %), as most screening programs primarily target subjects with a smoking history as the leading risk factor. Implementing LC screening programs in people who have never smoked (PNS) can significantly impact cancer-specific survival and early disease detection. However, the available evidence regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of such programs is limited. Therefore, further research on LC screening in PNS is warranted to determine the necessary techniques for accurately identifying individuals who should be included in screening programs.

Intraindividual Comparison of Dose Reduction and Coronary Calcium Scoring Accuracy Using Kilovolt-independent and Tin Filtration CT Protocols.

Purpose To investigate the ability of kilovolt-independent (hereafter, kV-independent) and tin filter spectral shaping to accurately quantify the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and radiation dose reductions compared with the standard 120-kV CT protocol. Materials and Methods This prospective, blinded reader study included 201 participants (mean age, 60 years ± 9.8 [SD]; 119 female, 82 male) who underwent standard 120-kV CT and additional kV-independent and tin filter research CT scans from October 2020 to July 2021. Scans were reconstructed using a Qr36f kernel for standard scans and an Sa36f kernel for research scans simulating artificial 120-kV images. CACS, risk categorization, and radiation doses were compared by analyzing data with analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test, Bland-Altman analysis, Pearson correlations, and κ analysis for agreement. Results There was no evidence of differences in CACS across standard 120-kV, kV-independent, and tin filter scans, with median CACS values of 1 (IQR, 0-48), 0.6 (IQR, 0-58), and 0 (IQR, 0-51), respectively (P = .85). Compared with standard 120-kV scans, kV-independent and tin filter scans showed excellent correlation in CACS values (r = 0.993 and r = 0.999, respectively), with high agreement in CACS risk categorization (κ = 0.95 and κ = 0.93, respectively). Standard 120-kV scans had a mean radiation dose of 2.09 mSv ± 0.84, while kV-independent and tin filter scans reduced it to 1.21 mSv ± 0.85 and 0.26 mSv ± 0.11, cutting doses by 42% and 87%, respectively (P < .001). Conclusion The kV-independent and tin filter research CT acquisition techniques showed excellent agreement and high accuracy in CACS estimation compared with standard 120-kV scans, with large reductions in radiation dose. Keywords: CT, Cardiac, Coronary Arteries, Radiation Safety, Coronary Artery Calcium Score, Radiation Dose Reduction, Low-Dose CT Scan, Tin Filter, kV-Independent Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Health Care Utilization and Costs in Lung Cancer Screening Participants-A Propensity-Matched Economic Analysis.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) for high-risk populations has been firmly established to reduce lung cancer mortality, but concerns exist regarding unintended downstream costs. Methods: Mean health care utilization and costs were compared in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study in a cohort undergoing LCS versus a propensity-matched control group who did not. Results: A cohort of 651 LCS participants was matched to 336 unscreened controls. Over the study period (mean 3.6 y), a modest increase in the number of claims (22.4 versus 21.9 per person-year [PY]; Δ 0.50 [95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.86], p = 0.006) and outpatient visits (4.01 versus 3.50 per PY; Δ 0.51 [0.37-0.65], p <0.0001), but not in inpatient admissions, was noted in the screened cohort. Claims payments, inpatient costs, and cancer care costs were similar in the screening arm versus the unscreened. Outpatient encounter costs per participant were higher in the screened group ($2662.18 versus $2040.67 per PY; Δ -$621.51 [-1118.05 to -124.97], p = 0.014). Removing the additional computed tomography screening examinations rendered differences not significant. Mean total costs were not significantly different at $6461.10 per PY in the screening group and $6125.31 in the unscreened group (Δ -$335.79 [-2009.65 to 1338.07], p = 0.69). Conclusions: Modest increases in outpatient costs are noted in individuals undergoing LCS, in part attributable to the screening examinations, without differences in overall health care costs. Health care costs and utilization seem otherwise similar in individuals participating in LCS and those who do not.

Patient and Clinician Recommendations to Improve Communication and Understanding of Lung Cancer Screening Results.

BACKGROUND: Patient understanding of chest low-dose CT (LDCT) scan results for lung cancer screening (LCS) may impact outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are patient- and clinician-identified gaps in understanding and communication of LCS results and how might communication be improved through a patient-oriented tool? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study of participants recruited from a multisite LCS program to understand knowledge gaps after receiving LCS results and to guide development of a commonly asked questions (CAQ) after LCS information sheet. Initial patient surveys assessed understanding and reactions to LCS results (n = 190). We then conducted patient interviews and focus group discussions (n = 31) to understand experiences receiving LDCT scan results and reactions to results letters and the proposed CAQ; we also interviewed clinicians (n = 6) for feedback on these resources. We summarized survey responses and used thematic analysis to identify major themes in focus groups and interviews. RESULTS: Of 190 survey respondents (43% response rate), although 88% agreed that they "understood" their LCS results, only 55% reported understanding what a lung nodule is. Approximately two-thirds thought it was "very important" to receive more information regarding lung nodules and incidental lung and heart disease. In interviews and focus groups, although patients believed that brief results letters for normal LDCT scan results generally were acceptable, most found letters explaining abnormal LDCT scan and incidental findings to be concerning and not a substitute for discussion with their clinician. Nearly all patients expressed that the CAQ sheet provided helpful information on nodules, results reporting and incidental findings, and helped them form questions to ask their clinicians. INTERPRETATION: We identified patient-reported information needs regarding LCS results and developed a CAQ information sheet that was refined with patient and clinician input. The CAQ may represent a simple and feasible way to improve LCS results reporting and to augment clinician-patient discussions.

Use and Outcomes of Low-Dose CT Scan Lung Cancer Screening in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about various aspects of low-dose CT (LDCT) scan lung cancer screening in US clinical practice, including characteristics of cases diagnosed after screening. We assessed this using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. RESEARCH QUESTION: What were the characteristics of patients with lung cancer, including stage and survival, whose disease was diagnosed after LDCT scan screenings? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We created an LDCT scan use cohort consisting of everyone in the 5% SEER-Medicare sample with ≥ 12 months of non-health maintenance organization (HMO) Part A and B coverage while 65 to 77 years of age from 2015 through 2019. LDCT scan use and lung cancer diagnosis rates were assessed in this cohort. Additionally, we created a lung cancer cohort consisting of patients who received a diagnosis between 2015 and 2017 at 65 to 78 years of age with complete (non-HMO Part A and B) coverage the year before diagnosis. The cases cohort comprised those screened or unscreened based on undergoing screening during that period; lung cancer characteristics and survival were compared between these groups. RESULTS: In the LDCT scan use cohort (n = 414,358), use rates increased from 0.10 (per 100 person-years) in 2015 to 1.3 in 2019. Among those with first screenings, 39.2% underwent a subsequent screen within 18 months. The 1-year cumulative lung cancer diagnosis rate after initial screenings was 2.4%. Claims for prescreen counseling were infrequent (about 10%). Of 48,891 patients in the lung cancer cohort, 1,150 (2.4%) underwent screening. Among screened patients, 52.3%, 11.0%, 20.7%, and 16.0% received diagnoses of stages I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively. Lung cancer-specific survival through 3 years was significantly greater in screened versus unscreened patients overall and for all stages except stage II; 3-year lung cancer-specific survival was 89.0% in screened patients with stage I disease. INTERPRETATION: LDCT scan use was low but increased over time. The lung cancer yield was substantial; cases among those who underwent screening primarily were in the early stage with high survival rates. Although screening rates were unacceptably low, screening outcomes in those Medicare recipients undergoing screening were favorable.

Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening: A Physician Survey.

PURPOSE: To describe barriers to lung cancer screening (LCS) among family medicine and general internal medicine primary care physicians (PCPs) and assess the association of barriers with discussion and referral for screening. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS AND SETTINGS: Random sample of primary care physicians (PCPs) in California. MEASURES: PCP practices for discussion and referral for LCS and ratings of LCS barriers. ANALYSIS: We performed exploratory factor analysis to identify four barrier constructs: (1) Physician Visit-Level Barriers to screening referral; (2) Physician System and Evidence Barriers; (3) Patient Cost Barrier; and (4) Other Patient Barriers. We then performed multivariable logistic regression adjusted for physician and practice characteristics to assess the association between the physician-reported barriers and whether PCPs discussed or referred for LCS. RESULTS: 368 physicians responded (response rate 42%). Most worked in large metropolitan areas (80%) and large health systems (59%). After adjusting for physician and practice characteristics, we found that physician-reporting of System and Evidence Barriers was associated with lower odds of discussion or referral for LDCT (aOR .18, 95% CI 0.09-0.37), while physician-reported Visit-Level Barriers were associated with increased odds discussion or referral (aOR 2.65, 95% CI 1.30-5.04). CONCLUSIONS: While physicians reported numerous barriers to LCS, we found that barriers were differentially associated with discussion or referral for screening. As new LCS guidelines broaden screening eligibility, it is critical to address these barriers to achieve higher rates of evidence-based LCS.

Lung Cancer Screening in Asbestos-Exposed Populations.

Asbestos exposure is the most important cause of occupational lung cancer mortality. Two large randomized clinical trials in the U.S. and Europe conclusively demonstrate that annual low-dose chest CT (LDCT) scan screening reduces lung cancer mortality. Age and smoking are the chief risk factors tested in LDCT studies, but numerous risk prediction models that incorporate additional lung cancer risk factors have shown excellent performance. The studies of LDCT in asbestos-exposed populations shows favorable results but are variable in design and limited in size and generalizability. Outstanding questions include how to: (1) identify workers appropriate for screening, (2) organize screening programs, (3) inform and motivate people to screen, and (4) incorporate asbestos exposure into LDCT decision-making in clinical practice. Conclusion: Screening workers aged ≥50 years with a history of ≥5 years asbestos exposure (or fewer years given intense exposure) in combination with either (a) a history of smoking at least 10 pack-years with no limit on time since quitting, or (b) a history of asbestos-related fibrosis, chronic lung disease, family history of lung cancer, personal history of cancer, or exposure to multiple workplace lung carcinogens is a reasonable approach to LDCT eligibility, given current knowledge. The promotion of LDCT-based screening among asbestos-exposed workers is an urgent priority.

Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction vs. Iterative Reconstruction for Quality of Low-Dose Head-and-Neck CT Angiography with Different Tube-Voltage Protocols in Emergency-Department Patients.

Objective: To compare the image quality of computed tomography angiography of the supra-aortic arteries (CTSA) at different tube voltages in low doses settings with deep learning-based image reconstruction (DLR) vs. hybrid iterative reconstruction (H-IR). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 102 patients who underwent CTSA systematically reconstructed with both DLR and H-IR. We assessed the image quality both quantitatively and qualitatively at 11 arterial segmental levels and 3 regional levels. Radiation-dose parameters were recorded and the effective dose was calculated. Eighty-six patients were eligible for analysis Of these patients, 27 were imaged with 120 kVp, 30 with 100 kVp, and 29 with 80 kVp. Results: The effective dose in 120 kVp, 100 kVp and 80 kVp was 1.5 ± 0.4 mSv, 1.1 ± 0.3 mSv and 0.68 ± 0.1 mSv, respectively (p < 0.01). Comparing 80 kVp + DLR vs. 120 and 100 kVp + H-IR CT scans, the mean overall arterial attenuation was about 64% and 34% higher (625.9 ± 118.5 HU vs. 382.3 ± 98.6 HU and 468 ± 118.5 HU; p < 0.01) without a significant difference in terms of image noise (17.7 ± 4.9 HU vs. 17.5 ± 5.2; p = 0.7 and 18.1 ± 5.4; p = 0.3) and signal-to-ratio increased by 59% and 33%, respectively (37.9 ± 12.3 vs. 23.8 ± 9.7 and 28.4 ± 12.5). This protocol also provided superior image quality in terms of qualitative parameters, compared to standard-kVp protocols with H-IR. Highest subjective image-quality grades for vascular segments close to the aorta were obtained with the 100 kVp + DLR protocol. Conclusions: DLR significantly reduced image noise and improved the overall image quality of CTSA with both low and standard tube voltages and at all vascular segments. CT that was acquired with 80 kVp and reconstructed with DLR yielded better overall image quality compared to higher kVp values with H-IR, while reducing the radiation dose by half, but it has limitations for arteries that are close to the aortic arch.

Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke.

Background. Screening with low-dose computed tomography scans can reduce lung cancer deaths but uptake remains low. This study examines psychosocial factors associated with obtaining lung cancer screening (LCS) among individuals. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted with 13 state quitlines' clients. Participants who met age and smoking history criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 6 months. Only participants randomized to the intervention group (a patient decision aid) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression was performed to identify determinants of obtaining LCS 6 months after the intervention. Results. There were 204 participants included in this study. Regarding individual attitudes, high and moderate levels of concern about overdiagnosis were associated with a decreased likelihood of obtaining LCS compared with lower levels of concern (high levels of concern, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.65; moderate levels of concern, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.53). In contrast, higher levels of anticipated regret about not obtaining LCS and later being diagnosed with lung cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of being screened compared with lower levels of anticipated regret (OR 5.59, 95% CI 1.72-18.10). Other potential harms related to LCS were not significant. Limitations. Follow-up may not have been long enough for all individuals who wished to be screened to complete the scan. Additionally, participants may have been more health motivated due to recruitment via tobacco quitlines. Conclusions. Anticipated regret about not obtaining screening is associated with screening behavior, whereas concern about overdiagnosis is associated with decreased likelihood of LCS. Implications. Decision support research may benefit from further examining anticipated regret in screening decisions. Additional training and information may be helpful to address concerns regarding overdiagnosis.

Asymptomatic hypoxia in COVID-19 is associated with poor outcome.

OBJECTIVES: Describe and evaluate the outcome of a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patient without shortness of breath. DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from COVID-19 patients diagnosed and cared for in Marseille, France. We selected data from patients who at admission, had a low dose CT scanner, dyspnea status, and oxygen saturation available. Blood gas was analyzed in a sample subset of patients. RESULTS: Among 1712 patients with COVID-19, we report that 1107 (64.7%) do not complain of shortness of breath at admission. The low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan showed signs compatible with pneumonia in 757/1,107 (68.4%) of patients without dyspnea. In a subset of patients who had underwent at least one blood gas analysis (n = 161) and presented without dyspnea at admission, 28.1% (27/96) presented with a hypoxemia/hypocapnia syndrome. Asymptomatic hypoxia was associated with a very poor outcome (33.3% were transferred to the ICU and 25.9% died). CONCLUSION: The absence of shortness of breath in an old patient with comorbidity merit medical attention and should not be considered as a good sign of well-being. The poor prognosis of asymptomatic hypoxia, highlight the severity of this mild clinical presentation. In these patients, pulse oximetry is an important mean to predict the outcome along with news score and LDCT scanner.

Clinical characteristics and management of a liver transplanted patient admitted with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We present here the case of a 62-year-old man, who was referred to the emergency department with fever and cough for 3 days. He underwent liver transplantation 4 years earlier due to HCV and NASH-related cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma. At admission he was in reduced general conditions. Nasopharyngeal smear specimen resulted positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pulmonary low-dose CT-scan revealed bilateral subpleural ground-glass infiltrates. O2 saturation was 93%. A treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine twice daily was started. The patient received also cefepime and remained in isolation. Seven days later imaging showed a progression of the pulmonary infiltrates. Cefepime was replaced by meropenem. During the following 3 days the fever resolved, and the general conditions of the patient significantly improved. Consequently, treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine was stopped. The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 interstitial pneumonia in this immunosuppressed patient was moderate to severe and liver injury was not clinically significant. Despite its limitations, this case report confirm that the liver may be only mildly affected during SARS-CoV-2 infection, also in liver transplanted patients. Further studies are needed to assess whether the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection is worse in immunosuppressed patients than in the general population.

Predictive factors for the participation of general practitioners in lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan in the Somme department in northern France.

INTRODUCTION: A study on lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (DEP KP80) was conducted in the Somme department in northern France between May 2016 and December 2018. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of family physicians in that department to identify potential predictive factors for their participation in this pilot study. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was sent to the 545 general practitioners (GPs) of the Somme department. This survey rendered it possible to identify the investigators who were active in the DEP KP80 study. The questionnaire's content was focused on the socio-demographic conditions of GPs, their professional practices, and their medical practice situations. RESULTS: The response rate was 38% (206 completed questionnaires). Active investigators in DEP KP80 accounted for 55% (n=113) of the GPs surveyed, and non-investigators for 45% (n=93). Age, gender, or medical practice situation were not related to the active GPs' participation in DEP KP80. A multivariate analysis revealed that two factors were correlated with active participation in organized screening: (1) prescription of nicotine replacement therapy; (2) smoking history of the GP. CONCLUSIONS: Securing the active involvement of family physicians and of the French regional cancer screening coordination centers seems essential for the future organization of lung cancer screening on a regional or national level. Our results demonstrate that incorporating smoking cessation support structures into the program would maximize the mechanism's potential.

Patient motivations for non-adherence to lung cancer screening in a military population.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and lung cancer screening has been shown to decrease this mortality. Adherence to lung cancer screening is paramount to realize the mortality benefit, and reported adherence rates vary widely. Few reports address non-adherence to screening, and our study sought to understand the non-compliant patients in our military population. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board approved retrospective review of patients enrolled in our screening program from 2013-2019 identified patients who failed to obtain a subsequent Low Dose CT scan (LDCT) within 15 months of their prior scan. Attempts were made to contact these patients and elucidate motivations for non-adherence via telephone. RESULTS: Of the 242 patients enrolled, 183 (76%) patients were adherent to the protocol. Significant predictors of non-adherence versus adherence were younger age (P=0.008), female sex (P=0.005), and enlisted officer rank (P=0.03). There was no difference with regards to race, smoking status, pack-years, negative screens, lung-RADS level, or nodule size. 31 (52%) non-adherent patients were contacted, and 24 (77%) reported their reason for non-adherence was lack of follow-up for a LDCT. Twenty (64%) were interested in re-enrollment. Of the total screening cohort, 15 interventions were performed, with lung cancer identified in 5 (2%)-a 67% false positive rate. One stage IV lung cancer was found in a non-adherent patient who re-enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of perceived contact for follow-up was expressed as the primary reason for non-compliance in our screening program. Compliance is critical to the efficacy of any screening modality, and adherence rates to lung cancer screening may be increased through improved contact with patients via multiple avenues (i.e., phone, email, and letter). There is benefit in contacting non-adherent patients as high rates of re-enrollment are possible.

Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose CT Scan: Baseline Results of a French Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer mortality has been found to decrease significantly with low-dose (LD) computed tomographic (CT) screening among current or former smokers. However, such a screening program is not implemented in France. This study assessed the feasibility of a lung cancer screening program using LD CT scan in a French administrative territory. We report here the results of the first screening round. PATIENTS AND METHODS: DEP KP80 was a single-arm prospective study initiated in May 2016. Participants aged 55 to 74 years, current or former smokers of ≥ 30 pack-years, were recruited. An annual LD CT scan was scheduled. Our algorithms considered nodules < 5 mm as negative findings and nodules > 10 mm as positive; for intermediate nodules between 5 and 10 mm, 3-month CT scan with doubling time measurement was recommended. All general practitioners, pulmonologists, and radiologists from the Somme department were solicited to participate. Subjects were selected by general practitioners or pulmonologists who checked the inclusion criteria and prescribed the CT scan. RESULTS: Over a 2.5-year period, 1307 subjects were recruited. Screening was negative in 733 cases (77.2%), positive in 54 (5.7%), and indeterminate in 162 (17.1%). After the 3-month scans, 57 subjects screened positive: 26 patients exhibited 31 lung cancers (67.7% of stage 0 to I), of whom 76.9% underwent surgical resection, and 29 had no cancer (false-positive rate = 3.1%). The prevalence of lung cancer was 2.7%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of organized lung cancer screening using LD CT scan within a real-life context in the general population.

Accuracy of comprehensive PCR analysis of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for CT-scan-confirmed pneumonia in elderly patients: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the accuracy of PCR detection of viruses and bacteria on nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS) for the diagnosis of pneumonia in elderly individuals. METHODS: We included consecutive hospitalized elderly individuals suspected of having pneumonia. At inclusion, NPS were collected from all participants and tested by PCR for the presence of viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens (index test, defined as comprehensive molecular testing). Routine diagnostic tests (blood and sputum culture, urine antigen detection) were also performed. The reference standard was the presence of pneumonia on a low-dose CT scan as assessed by two independent expert radiologists. RESULTS: The diagnosis of pneumonia was confirmed in 127 of 199 (64%) included patients (mean age 83 years, community-acquired pneumonia in 105 (83%)). A pathogen was identified by comprehensive molecular testing in 114 patients (57%) and by routine methods in 22 (11%). Comprehensive molecular testing was positive for viruses in 62 patients (31%) and for bacteria in 73 (37%). The sensitivity and specificity were 61% (95% CI 53%-69%) and 50% (95% CI 39%-61%) for comprehensive molecular testing, and 14% (95% CI 82%-21%) and 94% (95% CI 86%-98%) for routine testing, respectively. Positive likelihood ratio was 2.55 for routine methods and 1.23 for comprehensive molecular testing. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive molecular testing of NPS increases the number of pathogens detected compared with routine methods, but results are poorly predictive of the presence of pneumonia. Hence, comprehensive molecular testing is unlikely to impact clinical decision-making (NCT02467192). CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02467192.