Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review.

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.

Healthcare disparities, screening, and molecular testing in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a review.

Inequitable access to care continues to hinder improvements in diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. This review describes healthcare disparities in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States, focusing on racial, ethnic, sex-based, and socioeconomic trends. Furthermore, strategies to address disparities, overcome challenges, and improve patient outcomes are proposed. Barriers exist across lung cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment regimens, varying by sex, age, race and ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Incidence and mortality rates of lung cancer are higher among Black men than White men, and incidences in young women are substantially greater than in young men. Disparities may be attributed to geographic differences in screening access, with correlating higher incidence and mortality rates in rural versus urban areas. Lower socioeconomic status is also linked to lower survival rates. Several strategies could help reduce disparities and improve outcomes. Current guidelines could improve screening eligibility by incorporating sex, race, and socioeconomic status variables. Patient and clinician education on screening guidelines and patient-level barriers to care are key, and biomarker testing is critical since ~ 70% of patients with NSCLC have an actionable biomarker. Timely diagnosis, staging, and comprehensive biomarker testing, including cell-free DNA liquid biopsy, may provide valuable treatment guidance for patients with NSCLC. Efforts to improve lung cancer screening and biomarker testing access, decrease bias, and improve education about screening and testing are needed to reduce healthcare disparities in NSCLC.

Quantitative imaging workshop XIX: Utilizing quantitative thoracic imaging to optimize population health final summary.

Lung cancer screening involves the use of thoracic CT for both detection and measurements of suspicious lung nodules to guide the screening management. Since lung cancer screening eligibility typically requires age over 50 years along with >20 pack-year tobacco exposure, thoracic CT scans also frequently reveal evidence for pulmonary emphysema as well as coronary artery calcification. These three thoracic diseases are collectively three of the leading causes of premature death across the world. Screening for the major thoracic diseases in this heavily tobacco-exposed cohort is broadening the focus of lung cancer screening to a more comprehensive health evaluation including discussing the relevance of screen-detected findings of the heart and lung parenchyma. The status and implications of these emerging issues were reviewed in a multidisciplinary workshop focused on the process of quantitative imaging in the lung cancer screening setting to guide the evolution of this important new area of public health.

Benefit-to-radiation-risk of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Dutch-Belgian NELSON randomized controlled trials have shown significant mortality reductions from low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening (LCS). NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials have provided detailed dosimetry data for LCS. METHODS: LCS trial mortality benefit results, organ dose and effective dose data, and Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Report VII (BEIR VII) organ dose-to-cancer-mortality risk data are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of the NLST, ITALUNG, and COSMOS trials. Data from those trials also are used to estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for longer-term LCS corresponding to scenarios recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American Cancer Society. RESULTS: Including only screening doses, NLST benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios are 12:1 for males, 19:1 for females, and 16:1 overall. Including both screening and estimated follow-up doses, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for NLST are 9:1 for males, 13:1 for females, and 12:1 overall. For the ITALUNG trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 58-63:1. For the COSMOS trial, assuming sex-specific mortality benefits like those of the NELSON trial, the benefit-to-radiation-risk ratio is 23:1. Assuming a conservative 20% mortality benefit, annual screening in people 50-79 years old with a 20+ pack-year history of smoking has benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios of 23:1 (with follow-up doses adding 40% to screening doses) to 29:1 (with follow-up adding 10%) based on COSMOS dose data. CONCLUSIONS: Based on linear, no threshold BEIR VII dose-risk estimates, benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios for LCS are highly favorable. Results emphasize the importance of using modern CT technologies, maintaining low diagnostic follow-up rates, and minimizing both screening and diagnostic follow-up doses. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The benefits of lung cancer screening significantly outweigh estimates of future harms associated with exposure to radiation during screening and diagnostic follow-up examinations. Our findings emphasize the importance of lung cancer screening practices using state-of-the-art computed tomography scanners and specialized low-dose lung screening and diagnostic follow-up techniques.

Impact of lung cancer screening on stage migration and mortality among the national Veterans Health Administration population with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite randomized trials demonstrating a mortality benefit to low-dose computed tomography screening to detect lung cancer, uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow, and the benefits of screening remain unclear in clinical practice. METHODS: This study aimed to assess the impact of screening among patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) health care system diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2018. Lung cancer stage at diagnosis, lung cancer-specific survival, and overall survival between patients with cancer who did and did not receive screening before diagnosis were evaluated. We used Cox regression modeling and inverse propensity weighting analyses with lead time bias adjustment to correlate LCS exposure with patient outcomes. RESULTS: Of 57,919 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer in the VA system between 2011 and 2018, 2167 (3.9%) underwent screening before diagnosis. Patients with screening had higher rates of stage I diagnoses (52% vs. 27%; p ≤ .0001) compared to those who had no screening. Screened patients had improved 5-year overall survival rates (50.2% vs. 27.9%) and 5-year lung cancer-specific survival (59.0% vs. 29.7%) compared to unscreened patients. Among screening-eligible patients who underwent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment, screening resulted in substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; p = .003) and lung-specific mortality (aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.74; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: While LCS uptake remains limited, screening was associated with earlier stage diagnoses and improved survival. This large national study corroborates the value of LCS in clinical practice; efforts to widely adopt this vital intervention are needed.

Assessing the efficiency of eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomography lung screening in China according to current guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies indicates that lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines with high rates of lung cancer (LC) underdiagnosis, and although current screening guidelines have been updated and eligibility criteria for screening have been expanded, there are no studies comparing the efficiency of LCS guidelines in Chinese population. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2022, 31,394 asymptomatic individuals were screened using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) at our institution. Demographic data and relevant LC risk factors were collected. The efficiency of the LCS for each guideline criteria was expressed as the efficiency ratio (ER). The inclusion rates, eligibility rates, LC detection rates, and ER based on the different eligibility criteria of the four guidelines were comparatively analyzed. The four guidelines were as follows: China guideline for the screening and early detection of lung cancer (CGSL), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP). RESULTS: Of 31,394 participants, 298 (155 women, 143 men) were diagnosed with LC. For CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines, the eligibility rates for guidelines were 13.92%, 6.97%, 6.81%, and 53.46%; ERe for eligibility criteria were 1.46%, 1.64%, 1.51%, and 1.13%, respectively; and for the inclusion rates, they were 19.0%, 9.5%, 9.3%, and 73.0%, respectively. LCs which met the screening criteria of CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines were 29.2%, 16.4%, 14.8%, and 86.6%, respectively. The age and smoking criteria for CGSL were stricter, hence resulting in lower rates of LC meeting the screening criteria. The CGSL, NCCN, and USPSTF guidelines showed the highest underdiagnosis in the 45-49 age group (17.4%), while the I-ELCAP guideline displayed the highest missed diagnosis rate (3.0%) in the 35-39 age group. Males and females significantly differed in eligibility based on the criteria of the four guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The I-ELCAP guideline has the highest eligibility rate for both males and females. But its actual efficiency ratio for those deemed eligible by the guideline was the lowest. Whereas the NCCN guideline has the highest ERe value for those deemed eligible by the guideline.

Comparison of lung cancer occurring in fibrotic versus non-fibrotic lung on chest CT.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the behavior of lung nodules occurring in areas of pulmonary fibrosis and compare them to pulmonary nodules occurring in the non-fibrotic lung parenchyma. METHODS: This retrospective review of chest CT scans and electronic medical records received expedited IRB approval and a waiver of informed consent. 4500 consecutive patients with a chest CT scan report containing the word fibrosis or a specific type of fibrosis were identified using the system M*Model Catalyst (Maplewood, Minnesota, U.S.). The largest nodule was measured in the longest dimension and re-evaluated, in the same way, on the follow-up exam if multiple time points were available. The nodule doubling time was calculated. If the patient developed cancer, the histologic diagnosis was documented. RESULTS: Six hundred and nine patients were found to have at least one pulmonary nodule on either the first or the second CT scan. 274 of the largest pulmonary nodules were in the fibrotic tissue and 335 were in the non-fibrotic lung parenchyma. Pathology proven cancer was more common in nodules occurring in areas of pulmonary fibrosis compared to nodules occurring in areas of non-fibrotic lung (34% vs 15%, p < 0.01). Adenocarcinoma was the most common cell type in both groups but more frequent in cancers occurring in non-fibrotic tissue. In the non-fibrotic lung, 1 of 126 (0.8%) of nodules measuring 1 to 6 mm were cancer. In contrast, 5 of 49 (10.2%) of nodules in fibrosis measuring 1 to 6 mm represented biopsy-proven cancer (p < 0.01). The doubling time for squamous cell cancer was shorter in the fibrotic lung compared to non-fibrotic lung, however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.24). 15 incident lung nodules on second CT obtained ≤ 18 months after first CT scan was found in fibrotic lung and eight (53%) were diagnosed as cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Nodules occurring in fibrotic lung tissue are more likely to be cancer than nodules in the nonfibrotic lung. Incident pulmonary nodules in pulmonary fibrosis have a high likelihood of being cancer.

Screening approaches for lung cancer by blood-based biomarkers: Challenges and opportunities.

Lung cancer (LC) is one of the leading causes for cancer-related deaths in the world, accounting for 28% of all cancer deaths in Europe. Screening for lung cancer can enable earlier detection of LC and reduce lung cancer mortality as was demonstrated in several large image-based screening studies such as the NELSON and the NLST. Based on these studies, screening is recommended in the US and in the UK a targeted lung health check program was initiated. In Europe lung cancer screening (LCS) has not been implemented due to limited data on cost-effectiveness in the different health care systems and questions on for example the selection of high-risk individuals, adherence to screening, management of indeterminate nodules, and risk of overdiagnosis. Liquid biomarkers are considered to have a high potential to address these questions by supporting pre- and post- Low Dose CT (LDCT) risk-assessment thereby improving the overall efficacy of LCS. A wide variety of biomarkers, including cfDNA, miRNA, proteins and inflammatory markers have been studied in the context of LCS. Despite the available data, biomarkers are currently not implemented or evaluated in screening studies or screening programs. As a result, it remains an open question which biomarker will actually improve a LCS program and do this against acceptable costs. In this paper we discuss the current status of different promising biomarkers and the challenges and opportunities of blood-based biomarkers in the context of lung cancer screening.

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities. APPROACH: We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations. KEY RESULTS: PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

Is low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening conveniently accessible in China? A spatial analysis based on cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Regular Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer high-risk population has been proved to improve health outcomes and relieve disease burden efficiently for both individual and society. With geographical impedance becoming the major barrier preventing patients from getting timely healthcare service, this study incorporated health seeking behavior in estimating spatial accessibility of relative scarce LDCT resource in China, thus to provide real-world evidence for future government investment and policy making. METHODS: Taking Sichuan Province in southwest China as the study area, a cross-sectional survey was first carried out to collect actual practice and preferences for seeking LDCT services. Using Computed Tomography (CT) registration data reported by owner institutions representing LDCT services capacity, and grided town-level high-risk population as demand, the Nearest Neighbor Method was then utilized to calculate spatial accessibility of LDCT services. RESULTS: A total of 2,529 valid questionnaires were collected, with only 34.72% of the high-risk populations (746 individuals) followed the recommended annual screening. Participants preferred to travel to municipal-level and above institutions within 60 min for LDCT services. Currently, every thousand high-risk populations own 0.0845 CT scanners in Sichuan Province, with 96.95% able to access LDCT within 60 min and over half within 15 min. Urban areas generally showed better accessibility than rural areas, and the more developed eastern regions were better than the western regions with ethnic minority clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Spatial access to LDCT services is generally convenient in Sichuan Province, but disparity exists between different regions and population groups. Improving LDCT capacity in county-level hospitals as well as promoting health education and policy guidance to the public can optimize efficiency of existing CT resources. Implementing mobile CT services and improving rural public transportation may alleviate emerging disparities in accessing early lung cancer detection.

The pros and cons of lung cancer screening.

Several trials have shown that low-dose computed tomography-based lung cancer screening (LCS) allows a substantial reduction in lung cancer-related mortality, carrying the potential for other clinical benefits. There are, however, some uncertainties to be clarified and several aspects to be implemented to optimize advantages and minimize the potential harms of LCS. This review summarizes current evidence on LCS, discussing some of the well-established and potential benefits, including lung cancer (LC)-related mortality reduction and opportunity for smoking cessation interventions, as well as the disadvantages of LCS, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Different perspectives are provided on LCS based on the updated literature. KEY POINTS: Lung cancer is a leading cancer-related cause of death and screening should reduce associated mortality. This review summarizes current evidence related to LCS. Several aspects need to be implemented to optimize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks of LCS.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making. RESULTS: Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

Coronary Artery Calcification on Low-Dose Lung Cancer Screening CT in South Korea: Visual and Artificial Intelligence-Based Assessment and Association With Cardiovascular Events.

BACKGROUND. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) on lung cancer screening low-dose chest CT (LDCT) is a cardiovascular risk marker. South Korea was the first Asian country to initiate a national LDCT lung cancer screening program, although CAC-related outcomes are poorly explored. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to evaluate CAC prevalence and severity using visual analysis and artificial intelligence (AI) methods and to characterize CAC's association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients undergoing LDCT in Korea's national lung cancer screening program. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1002 patients (mean age, 62.4 ± 5.4 [SD] years; 994 men, eight women) who underwent LDCT at two Korean medical centers between April 2017 and May 2023 as part of Korea's national lung cancer screening program. Two radiologists independently assessed CAC presence and severity using visual analysis, consulting a third radiologist to resolve differences. Two AI software applications were also used to assess CAC presence and severity. MACE occurrences were identified by EMR review. RESULTS. Interreader agreement for CAC presence and severity, expressed as kappa, was 0.793 and 0.671, respectively. CAC prevalence was 53.4% by consensus visual assessment, 60.1% by AI software I, and 56.6% by AI software II. CAC severity was mild, moderate, and severe by consensus visual analysis in 28.0%, 10.3%, and 15.1%; by AI software I in 39.9%, 14.0%, and 6.2%; and by AI software II in 34.9%, 14.3%, and 7.3%. MACEs occurred in 36 of 625 (5.6%) patients with follow-up after LDCT (median, 1108 days). MACE incidence in patients with no, mild, moderate, and severe CAC for consensus visual analysis was 1.1%, 5.0%, 2.9%, and 8.6%, respectively (p < .001); for AI software I, it was 1.3%, 3.0%, 7.9%, and 11.3% (p < .001); and for AI software II, it was 1.2%, 3.4%, 7.7%, and 9.6% (p < .001). CONCLUSION. For Korea's national lung cancer screening program, MACE occurrence increased significantly with increasing CAC severity, whether assessed by visual analysis or AI software. The study is limited by the large sex imbalance for Korea's national lung cancer screening program. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings provide reference data for health care practitioners engaged in developing and overseeing national lung cancer screening programs, highlighting the importance of routine CAC evaluation.

"Because that is the right thing to do": A focus group study of Australian expert perspectives on offering smoking cessation support in lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) trials, targeting people with smoking history, have demonstrated reduced mortality. How to optimally embed evidence-based smoking cessation support in LCS, including in Australia, needs to be better understood. We sought experts' perspectives to identify potential barriers and effective implementation strategies. METHODS: Perceptions of providing smoking cessation support in LCS were elicited in 24 focus groups and three individual interviews with clinicians, cancer screening program managers/policymakers, and researchers during 2021. We conducted framework analysis and mapped key topics to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Experts (N=84 participants) strongly supported capitalising on an "opportune time" for smoking cessation and new LCS participant contact opportunities throughout the screening and assessment pathway. Many advocated for adapting existing cessation resources to the LCS setting and providing support without participant costs. Experts generally considered referral alone to established programs (e.g., telephone Quitline) as insufficient, but likely helpful in follow-up, and dedicated cessation specialist roles as essential. Broader cessation messaging (via mass media/community channels) was also suggested to reinforce individualised support. Experts described inherent alignment, and an ethical responsibility, to deliver smoking cessation as a core LCS component. It was suggested that LCS-eligible participants' varied experiences of stigma, health literacy, and motivation, be considered in cessation supports. Primary care support and individualised interventions were suggested to facilitate implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Experts considered smoking cessation support essential in LCS. The expert-identified and multi-level implementation strategies described here can directly inform smoking cessation-specific planning for Australia's forthcoming National LCS Program. IMPLICATIONS: The international literature includes few examples considering how best to provide smoking cessation support within a lung cancer screening (LCS) program in advance of program commencement. Our analysis, using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, is one of the first to explore experts' perspectives within this context. Experts identified multiple implementation barriers to providing smoking cessation support within and outside of an Australian LCS program, including key work infrastructure barriers, and advocated for providing tailored interventions within this program. Our foundational work in a new targeted screening program's pre-implementation phase will allow international comparisons to be made.

Developing a systems-focused tool for modeling lung cancer screening resource needs.

BACKGROUND: Early detection through screening dramatically improves lung cancer survival rates, including among war Veterans, who are at heightened risk. The effectiveness of low dose computed tomography scans in lung cancer screening (LCS) prompted the Veteran's Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program (VA LPOP) to increase screening rates. We aimed to develop an adaptive population health tool to determine adequate resource allocation for the program, with a specific focus on primary care providers, nurse navigators, and radiologists. METHODS: We developed a tool using C + + that uses inputs that represents the process of the VA LCS program in Ann Arbor, Michigan to calculate FTEs of human resource needs to screen a given population. Further, we performed a sensitivity analysis to understand how resource needs are impacted by changes in population, screening eligibility, and time allocated for the nurse navigators' tasks. RESULTS: Using estimates from the VA LCS Program as demonstrative inputs, we determined that the greatest number of full-time equivalents required were for radiologists, followed by nurse navigators and then primary care providers, for a target population of 75,000. An increase in the population resulted in a linear increase of resource needs, with radiologists experiencing the greatest rate of increase, followed by nurse navigators and primary care providers. These resource requirements changed with primary care providers, nurse navigators and radiologists demonstrating the greatest increase when 1-20, 20-40 and > 40% of Veterans accepted to be screened respectively. Finally, when increasing the time allocated to check eligibility by the nurse navigator from zero to three minutes, there was a linear increase in the full-time equivalents required for the nurse navigator. CONCLUSION: Variation of resource utilization demonstrated by our user facing tool emphasizes the importance of tailored strategies to accommodate specific population demographics and downstream work. We will continue to refine this tool by incorporating additional variability in system parameters, resource requirements following an abnormal test result, and resource distribution over time to reach steady state. While our tool is designed for a specific program in one center, it has wider applicability to other cancer screening programs.

Examination of Firefighting as an Occupational Exposure Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Firefighting is known to be carcinogenic to humans. However, current lung cancer screening guidelines do not account for occupational exposure. We hypothesize that firefighting is an independent risk factor associated with the development of high-risk lung nodules on low-dose CT (LDCT). METHODS: Members of a firefighter's union underwent LDCT at a single institution between April 2022 and June 2023 within a lung cancer screening program. Results were interpreted by designated chest radiologists and reported using the Lung-RADS scoring system. Demographic and radiographic data were recorded, and summary statistics are reported. RESULTS: 1347 individuals underwent lung cancer screening, with a median age of 51 years (IQR 42-58), including 56 (4.2%) females. Overall, 899 (66.7%) were never smokers, 345 (25.6%) were former smokers, and 103 (7.7%) were current smokers. There were 41 firefighters (3.0%) who had high-risk (Lung-RADS 3 or 4) nodules requiring intervention or surveillance, of which 21 (1.5%) were Lung-RADS 3 and 20 (1.5%) that were Lung-RADS 4. Of the firefighters with high-risk nodules, only 6 (14.6%) were eligible for LDCT based on current screening guidelines. There were 7 high-risk nodules (0.5%) that required procedural intervention, 6 (85.7%) of which were from the non-screening eligible cohort. There were also 20 never-smoking firefighters (57.1%) with high-risk nodules that were non-screening eligible. CONCLUSION: Firefighting, even in the absence of smoking history, may be associated with the development of high-risk lung nodules on LDCT. Carefully selected occupational exposures should be considered in the development of future lung cancer screening guidelines.

Risk-stratified Approach for Never- and Ever-Smokers in Lung Cancer Screening: A Prospective Cohort Study in China.

Rationale: Over 40% of lung cancer cases occurred in never-smokers in China. However, high-risk never-smokers were precluded from benefiting from lung cancer screening as most screening guidelines did not consider them. Objectives: We sought to develop and validate prediction models for 3-year lung cancer risks for never- and ever-smokers, named the China National Cancer Center Lung Cancer models (China NCC-LCm2021 models). Methods: 425,626 never-smokers and 128,952 ever-smokers from the National Lung Cancer Screening program were used as the training cohort and analyzed using multivariable Cox models. Models were validated in two independent prospective cohorts: one included 369,650 never-smokers and 107,678 ever-smokers (841 and 421 lung cancers), and the other included 286,327 never-smokers and 78,469 ever-smokers (503 and 127 lung cancers). Measurements and Main Results: The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves in the two validation cohorts were 0.698 and 0.673 for never-smokers and 0.728 and 0.752 for ever-smokers. Our models had higher areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves than other existing models and were well calibrated in the validation cohort. The China NCC-LCm2021 ⩾0.47% threshold was suggested for never-smokers and ⩾0.51% for ever-smokers. Moreover, we provided a range of threshold options with corresponding expected screening outcomes, screening targets, and screening efficiency. Conclusion: The construction of the China NCC-LCm2021 models can accurately reflect individual risk of lung cancer, regardless of smoking status. Our models can significantly increase the feasibility of conducting centralized lung cancer screening programs because we provide justified thresholds to define the high-risk population of lung cancer and threshold options to adapt different configurations of medical resources.

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Adult Interstitial Lung Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Incidental parenchymal abnormalities detected on chest computed tomography scans are termed interstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs). ILAs may represent early interstitial lung disease (ILD) and are associated with an increased risk of progressive fibrosis and mortality. The prevalence of ILAs is unknown, with heterogeneity across study populations. Objectives: Estimate the pooled prevalence of ILAs in lung cancer screening, general population-based, and at-risk familial cohorts using meta-analysis; identify variables associated with ILA risk; and characterize ILA-associated mortality. Methods: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022373203), and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology recommendations were followed. Relevant studies were searched on Embase and Medline. Study titles were screened and abstracts reviewed for full-text eligibility. Random effect models were used to pool prevalence estimates for specified subgroups and ILA-associated mortality risk. Risk of ILAs was estimated based on age, sex, and FVC. Quality assessment was conducted using an adapted Assessment Tool for Prevalence Studies. Measurements and Main Results: The search identified 9,536 studies, with 22 included, comprising 88,325 participants. The pooled ILA prevalence was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.13) in lung cancer screening, 7% (95% CI, 0.04-0.10) in general population, and 26% (95% CI, 0.20-0.32) in familial cohorts. Pooled mortality risk was increased in those with ILAs (odds ratio, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.19-5.81). Older age, male sex, and lower FVC% were associated with greater odds of ILA. Conclusions: Populations undergoing imaging for non-ILD indications demonstrate high ILA prevalence. Standardized reporting and follow-up of ILAs is needed, including defining those at greatest risk of progression to ILD.

Study rationale and design of the PEOPLHE trial.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) demonstrated a 20-40% reduction in lung cancer mortality. National stakeholders and international scientific societies are increasingly endorsing LCS programs, but translating their benefits into practice is rather challenging. The "Model for Optimized Implementation of Early Lung Cancer Detection: Prospective Evaluation Of Preventive Lung HEalth" (PEOPLHE) is an Italian multicentric LCS program aiming at testing LCS feasibility and implementation within the national healthcare system. PEOPLHE is intended to assess (i) strategies to optimize LCS workflow, (ii) radiological quality assurance, and (iii) the need for dedicated resources, including smoking cessation facilities. METHODS: PEOPLHE aims to recruit 1.500 high-risk individuals across three tertiary general hospitals in three different Italian regions that provide comprehensive services to large populations to explore geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic diversities. Screening by LDCT will target current or former (quitting < 10 years) smokers (> 15 cigarettes/day for > 25 years, or > 10 cigarettes/day for > 30 years) aged 50-75 years. Lung nodules will be volumetric measured and classified by a modified PEOPLHE Lung-RADS 1.1 system. Current smokers will be offered smoking cessation support. CONCLUSION: The PEOPLHE program will provide information on strategies for screening enrollment and smoking cessation interventions; administrative, organizational, and radiological needs for performing a state-of-the-art LCS; collateral and incidental findings (both pulmonary and extrapulmonary), contributing to the LCS implementation within national healthcare systems.