Search

Worldwide, lung cancer is the most common killer among cancers, advanced disease has worse outcomes, earlier stage detection leads to better outcomes, and high-quality screening has a favorable net benefit. With the mortality reduction recognized from annual low-radiation dose computed tomography by screening those at high risk, there has been consideration that this benefit could translate to those who have never smoked. There have been several large-scale, single-arm, observational trials in Asia in persons with light to no smoking histories, with or without a family history of lung cancer, which have revealed high or higher lung cancer detection rates than previously reported in high-risk persons who currently or formerly smoked. The Early Detection Program for Lung Cancer in Taiwan, of nearly 50,000 persons, revealed that the cancer detection rate for those screened with low-radiation dose computed tomography was more than twofold higher in light- or never-smokers with a family history of lung cancer compared with high-risk persons with more than 30 or more pack-years exposure and meeting U.S. Preventative Services Task Force criteria for screening. In addition, more than 90% of the cancers detected in those with a family history were in early stage. On the basis of those findings, the researchers concluded that screening first-degree relatives of those with a family history of lung cancer, irrespective of smoking history, would lead to a decrease in lung cancer mortality. We believe that the findings in this cohort and others like it represent substantial overdiagnosis and that the harms associated with screening a population that has a low likelihood of developing lethal cancers have not been thoroughly considered. Here, we provide our perspective and consider the potential benefits and harms of screening populations outside those currently eligible using the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force criteria., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Silvestri reports research relationships with Delfi, Nucleix and Freenome and research and consulting relationship with Biodesix. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is often impaired in lung cancer survivors. To inform personalized survivorship care, we identified associations between HR-QoL scores and patient-, tumor-, and treatment-factors over time., Materials and Methods: We evaluated HR-QoL scores provided at diagnosis, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years from the Yale Lung Cancer Biorepository. HR-QoL was measured via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L) instrument and available for a subset of patients (n = 513). Analyses were stratified by early-stage (I-II; n = 355) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), advanced stage NSCLC (III-IV; n = 158), and small cell lung cancer (SCLC, n = 21). We used mixed effects modeling and multivariable analysis with covariate adjustment to examine changes in FACT-L from diagnosis to follow-up. Sensitivity analysis was performed including patients with early-stage disease and complete FACT-L scores at both baseline and year 2 (n = 91)., Results: The average FACT-L scores at diagnosis in early-stage NSCLC, advanced stage NSCLC, and SCLC were 121.0 (standard deviation (SD) 11.4), 109.2 (18.7), and 98.7 (20.2) respectively. At all timepoints, HR-QoL was higher in patients with early-stage NSCLC (vs advanced-stage disease). In patients with early- and advanced-stage NSCLC, HR-QoL was higher at years 1 and 2 than at diagnosis, though the changes did not meet clinical significance. At NSCLC diagnosis, higher HR-QoL was associated with older age, better performance status, participating in physical activity, adenocarcinoma histology, and (in advanced stage NSCLC) anticipated treatment with chemotherapy. At NSCLC follow-up, HR-QoL was higher in patients with higher BMI and better performance status., Discussion: In patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC, HR-QoL scores are impacted by patient factors, tumor factors, and treatment factors. HR-QoL is higher in patients with early-stage disease. In patients surviving 2 years, HR-QoL was higher at follow-up, though the change did not meet clinical significance. To optimize HR-QoL, lung cancer survivorship teams should prioritize comorbidity management, physical activity, healthy weight maintenance, and treatment-related side effects., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy targeting the lung periphery has developed at an accelerated pace over the last two decades, whereas evidence to support introduction of innovative technologies has been variable and deficient. A major gap relates to variable reporting of diagnostic yield, in addition to limited comparative studies. Objectives: To develop a research framework to standardize the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy techniques for peripheral lung lesions. Specifically, we aimed for consensus on a robust definition of diagnostic yield, and we propose potential study designs at various stages of technology development. Methods: Panel members were selected for their diverse expertise. Workgroup meetings were conducted in virtual or hybrid format. The cochairs subsequently developed summary statements, with voting proceeding according to a modified Delphi process. The statement was cosponsored by the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 statements on the definition of diagnostic outcomes and study designs. A strict definition of diagnostic yield should be used, and studies should be reported according to the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines. Clinical or radiographic follow-up may be incorporated into the reference standard definition but should not be used to calculate diagnostic yield from the procedural encounter. Methodologically robust comparative studies, with incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, are needed to adequately assess and validate minimally invasive diagnostic technologies targeting the lung periphery. Conclusions: This American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians statement aims to provide a research framework that allows greater standardization of device validation efforts through clearly defined diagnostic outcomes and robust study designs. High-quality studies, both industry and publicly funded, can support subsequent health economic analyses and guide implementation decisions in various healthcare settings.

Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures None declared.

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., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios., (© 2023 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality for men and women in the United States. Screening for lung cancer with annual low-dose CT is saving lives, and the continued implementation of lung screening can save many more. In 2015, the CMS began covering annual lung screening for those who qualified based on the original United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening criteria, which included patients 55 to 77 year of age with a 30 pack-year history of smoking, who were either currently using tobacco or who had smoked within the previous 15 years. In 2021, the USPSTF issued new screening guidelines, decreasing the age of eligibility to 80 years of age and pack-years to 20. Lung screening remains controversial for those who do not meet the updated USPSTF criteria, but who have additional risk factors for the development of lung cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.

Introduction: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA and worldwide, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to improve lung cancer outcomes. A critical question is whether the ratio of potential benefits to harms found in prior LCS trials applies to an older and potentially sicker population. The Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study will help close this knowledge gap by leveraging real-world data to fully characterise LCS recipients. The principal goal of the PLuS study is to characterise the comorbidity burden of individuals undergoing LCS and quantify the benefits and harms of LCS to enable informed decision-making., Methods and Analysis: PLuS is a multicentre observational study designed to assemble an LCS cohort from the electronic health records of ~40 000 individuals undergoing annual LCS with LDCT from 2016 to 2022. Data will be integrated into a unified repository to (1) examine the burden of multimorbidity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age; (2) quantify potential benefits and harms; and (3) use the observational data with validated simulation models in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to provide LCS outcomes in the real-world US population. We will fit a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted ORs of comorbidity, functional limitations and impaired pulmonary function adjusted for relevant covariates. We will also estimate the cumulative risk of LCS outcomes using discrete-time survival models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine observational data and simulation models to estimate the long-term impact of LCS with LDCT., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board and VA Portland Health Care System. The results will be disseminated through publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Safety considerations include protection of patient confidentiality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pretreatment invasive nodal staging is paramount for appropriate treatment decisions in non-small cell lung cancer. Despite guidelines recommending when to perform staging, many studies suggest that invasive nodal staging is underused. Attitudes and barriers to guideline-recommended staging are unclear. The National Lung Cancer Roundtable initiated this study to better understand the factors associated with guideline-adherent nodal staging., Research Question: What are the knowledge gaps, attitudes, and beliefs of thoracic surgeons and pulmonologists about invasive nodal staging? What are the barriers to guideline-recommended staging?, Study Design and Methods: A web-based survey of a random sample of pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons identified as members of American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) was conducted in 2019. Survey domains included knowledge of invasive nodal staging guidelines, attitudes and beliefs toward implementation, and perceived barriers to guideline adherence., Results: Among 453 responding physicians, 29% were unaware that invasive nodal staging guidelines exist. Among the 320 physicians who knew guidelines exist, attitudes toward the guidelines were favorable, with 91% agreeing guidelines are generalizable and 90% agreeing that recommendations improved their staging and treatment decisions. Approximately 80% responded that guideline recommendations are based on satisfactory levels of scientific evidence, and 50% stated a lack of evidence linking adherence to guidelines to changes in management or better patient outcomes. Nearly 9 in 10 physicians reported at least one barrier to guideline adherence. The most common barriers included patient anxiety associated with treatment delays (62%), difficulty implementing guidelines into routine practice (52%), and time delays of additional testing (51%)., Interpretation: Among physicians who responded to our survey, more than one-quarter were unaware of invasive nodal staging guidelines. Attitudes toward guideline recommendations were positive, although 20% reported insufficient evidence to support staging algorithms. Most physicians reported barriers to implementing guidelines. Multilevel interventions are likely needed to increase rates of guideline-recommended invasive nodal staging., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer mortality; however, that reduction depends upon screening adherence. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with adherence rate for LCS among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network., Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted among patients with negative baseline CT results in a multi-integrated health care network LCS program between January 2015 and January 2020. The two outcomes were adherence for the first and second subsequent LCS studies. Negative baseline result was defined as a Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System score 0, 1, or 2. Adherence was defined as undergoing a follow-up study within 11 to 15 months of a prior scan. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of adherence, adjusting for patient demographics, median household income (on the basis of geocoding ZIP codes from the US Census Bureau), smoking history, screening sites, and provider specialty., Results: A total of 30.7% (512 of 1,668) and 16.3% (270 of 1,660) of patients were adherent for the first two annual subsequent screens, respectively. First-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site and provider specialty. Second-year adherence was higher among former smokers and varied by site, provider specialty, and pack-years smoked., Conclusions: Adherence to LCS in a multihospital integrated health care network was poor and even lower at year 2. The identified factors associated with adherence may serve as targets to increase LCS adherence and decrease lung cancer mortality., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO 2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions., Methods: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists., Results: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience)., Conclusions: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience., (© 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Targeted therapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with oncogenic drivers have caused a paradigm shift in care. Biomarker testing is needed to assess eligibility for these therapies. Pulmonologists often perform bronchoscopy, providing tissue for both pathologic diagnosis and biomarker analysis. We performed this survey to define the existing knowledge and practices regarding the pulmonologists' role in biomarker testing for advanced NSCLC., Research Question: What is the current knowledge and practice of pulmonologists regarding biomarker testing and targeted therapies in advanced NSCLC?, Study Design and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed using an electronic survey of a random sample of 7,238 pulmonologists. Questions focused on diagnostic steps and biomarker analyses for NSCLC., Results: A total of 453 pulmonologists responded. Respondents vary by reported lung cancer patient volume, ranging from 51% evaluating one to four new cases per month to 19% evaluating > 10 cases per month. Interventional training, academic practice setting, and higher volume of endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) were associated with increased knowledge of practice guidelines for the number of recommended passes during EBUS-TBNA (P < .05). Academic pulmonologists more commonly performed or referred for EBUS-TBNA than community pulmonologists (96% and 83%, respectively; P < .0005). Higher testing rates were associated with interventional training, academic setting, and the presence of an institutional policy, whereas lower testing rates were associated with general pulmonologists, practice in community settings, and lack of a guiding institutional policy (P < .05)., Interpretation: Substantial differences among pulmonologists' evaluation of advanced NSCLC, variation in knowledge of available biomarkers and the importance of targeted therapies, and differences in institutional coordination likely lead to underutilization of biomarker testing. Interventional training appears to drive improved knowledge and practice for biomarker testing more than practice setting. Improvements are needed in tissue acquisition and interdisciplinary coordination to ensure universal and comprehensive testing for eligible patients., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not., Methods: Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached., Results: The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements., Conclusions: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not., Methods: Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached., Results: The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements., Conclusions: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is now recommended for those meeting standard risk factor-based eligibility criteria, the role of comorbidity in the uptake of LCS with LDCT in an older real-world U.S. population is not well established. Objectives: To examine the relationships between comorbidity, functional status, and LCS utilization in the United States. Methods: Using population-based data from the 2017-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we examined the association of comorbid conditions and functional limitations regarding activities of daily living with LCS utilization among participants that met the LCS criteria based on the U.S. Preventive Service Taskforce guidelines. We employed multivariable weighted logistic regression models to evaluate these associations, both overall and within subgroups defined by age (<65 yr vs. ⩾65 yr), sex, and smoking history. Results: Of 11,214 participants who met the eligibility criteria for LCS, 1,731 (16%) underwent LCS with LDCT. The majority were White (90%), male (55%), former smokers (52%), and living with at least one chronic comorbid condition (77%). More than 28% had three or more comorbid conditions, and approximately 40% of participants reported having some form of functional limitations. In the multivariable models, the likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT within the past year was positively associated with higher amount of comorbidity (⩾5 vs. 0: adjusted odds ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-4.48) but not with functional limitations (⩾3 vs. 0: adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.66-1.50). Conclusions: The presence of comorbid conditions is associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing LCS with LDCT. Because poor health status may diminish the benefits of screening, future research is needed to precisely characterize the health status of LCS-eligible individuals.

Background: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018., Methods: The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year., Results: Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%)., Conclusions: Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer incidence and death in the United States. Risk factor-based guidelines and risk model-based strategies are used to identify patients who could benefit from low-dose chest CT (LDCT) screening. Few studies compare guidelines or models within the same cohort. We evaluate lung cancer screening performance of two risk factor-based guidelines (US Preventive Services Task Force 2014 recommendations [USPSTF-2014] and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Group 2 [NCCN-2]) and two risk model-based strategies, Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening (PLCOm2012) and the Bach model) in the same occupational cohort., Research Question: Which risk factor-based guideline or model-based strategy is most accurate in detecting lung cancers in a highly exposed occupational cohort?, Study Design and Methods: Fire Department of City of New York (FDNY) rescue/recovery workers exposed to the September 11, 2001 attacks underwent LDCT lung cancer screening based on smoking history and age. The USPSTF-2014, NCCN-2, PLCOm2012 model, and Bach model were retrospectively applied to determine how many lung cancers were diagnosed using each approach., Results: Among the study population (N = 3,953), 930 underwent a baseline scan that met at least one risk factor or model-based LDCT screening strategy; 73% received annual follow-up scans. Among the 3,953, 63 lung cancers were diagnosed, of which 50 were detected by at least one LDCT screening strategy. The NCCN-2 guideline was the most sensitive (79.4%; 50/63). When compared with NCCN-2, stricter age and smoking criteria reduced sensitivity of the other guidelines/models (USPSTF-2014 [44%], PLCOm2012 [51%], and Bach[46%]). The 13 missed lung cancers were mainly attributable to smoking less and quitting longer than guideline/model eligibility criteria. False-positive rates were similar across all four guidelines/models., Interpretation: In this cohort, our findings support expanding eligibility for LDCT lung cancer screening by lowering smoking history from ≥30 to ≥20 pack-years and age from 55 years to 50 years old. Additional studies are needed to determine its generalizability to other occupational/environmental exposed cohorts., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lung cancer survivors need more options to improve quality of life (QoL). It is unclear to what extent patients with advanced stage disease are willing to participate in home-based physical activity (PA) and if these interventions improve QoL. The goal of our study was to determine interest in participating in our 3-month home-based walking regimen in patients with advanced stage lung cancer. We used a randomized design to evaluate for potential benefit in PA and patient-reported outcomes., Methods: We performed an open-label, 1:1 randomized trial in 40 patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evaluating enrollment rate, PA, QoL, dyspnea, depression, and biomarkers. Compared to usual care (UC), the intervention group (IG) received an accelerometer, in-person teaching session, and gain-framed text messages for 12 weeks., Results: We enrolled 56% (40/71) of eligible patients. Participants were on average 65 years and enrolled 1.9 years from diagnosis. Most patients were women (75%), and receiving treatment (85%) for stage IV (73%) adenocarcinoma (83%). A minority of patients were employed part-time or full time (38%). Both groups reported low baseline PA (IG mean 37 (Standard deviation (SD) 46) vs UC 59 (SD 56) minutes/week; p = 0.25). The IG increased PA more than UC (mean change IG + 123 (SD 212) vs UC + 35 (SD 103) minutes/week; p = 0.051)). Step count in the IG was not statistically different between baseline (4707 step/day), week 6 (5605; p = 0.16), and week 12 (4606 steps/day; p = 0.87). The intervention improved EORTC role functioning domain (17 points; p = 0.022) with borderline improvement in dyspnea (- 13 points; p = 0.051) compared to UC. In patients with two blood samples (25%), we observed a significant increase in soluble PD-1 (219.8 (SD 54.5) pg/mL; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our pilot trial using a 3-month, home-based, mobile health intervention enrolled over half of eligible patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. The intervention increased PA, and may improve several aspects of QoL. We also identified potential biomarker changes relevant to lung cancer biology. Future research should use a larger sample to examine the effect of exercise on cancer biomarkers, which may mediate the association between PA and QoL., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03352245 ).

Background: The diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) continues to present clinical challenges. Despite extensive experience with guided bronchoscopy, the diagnostic yield has not improved significantly. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopic platforms have been developed potentially to improve the diagnostic yield for PPL. Presently, limited data exist that evaluate the performance of robotic systems in live human subjects., Research Question: What is the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs?, Study Design and Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter pilot and feasibility study that used a robotic bronchoscopic system with a mother-daughter configuration in patients with PPL 1 to 5 cm in size. The primary end points were successful lesion localization with the use of radial probe endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) imaging and incidence of procedure related adverse events. Robotic bronchoscopy was performed in patients with the use of direct visualization, electromagnetic navigation, and fluoroscopy. After the use of R-EBUS imaging, transbronchial needle aspiration was performed. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was used on all cases. Transbronchial needle aspiration alone was sufficient when ROSE was diagnostic; when ROSE was not diagnostic, transbronchial biopsy was performed with the use of the robotic platform, followed by conventional guided bronchoscopic approaches at the discretion of the investigator., Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled at five centers. One patient withdrew consent, which left 54 patients for data analysis. Median lesion size was 23 mm (interquartile range, 15 to 29 mm). R-EBUS images were available in 53 of 54 cases. Lesion localization was successful in 51 of 53 patients (96.2%). Pneumothorax was reported in two of 54 of the cases (3.7%); tube thoracostomy was required in one of the cases (1.9 %). No additional adverse events occurred., Interpretation: This is the first, prospective, multicenter study of robotic bronchoscopy in patients with PPLs. Successful lesion localization was achieved in 96.2% of cases, with an adverse event rate comparable with conventional bronchoscopic procedures. Additional large prospective studies are warranted to evaluate procedure characteristics, such as diagnostic yield., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03727425; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 Fagerstrӧm 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 χ 2 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., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

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., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Computed tomography lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. However, screening is underutilized. This study assesses the extent to which providers discuss lung cancer screening with their patients, as a lack of discussion and counseling may serve as a potential cause of low utilization rates. Data from 1667 adults aged 55-80 years sampled in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey was utilized. A weighted multivariable logistic regression model was fit with past-year discussion about lung cancer screening with a provider as the outcome. The adjusted odds of discussion were higher for current cigarette smokers compared to non-cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 8.74). Despite higher odds, the absolute prevalence was low with only 18% (95% CI, 11.8 to 24.2%) of current adult smokers reporting a past-year discussion. Knowledge of screening from trusted sources of medical information, such as doctors, can increase screening rates and may ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

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., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians, published by Elsevier Inc; RSNA; and The American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bronchoscopy is commonly used to evaluate suspicious lung lesions. The yield is likely dependent on patient, radiographic, and bronchoscopic factors. Few studies have assessed these factors simultaneously while also including the preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer (pCA) when assessing yield., Methods: This study is a secondary data analysis from a prospective multicenter trial. Diagnostic yield of standard bronchoscopy with biopsy ± fluoroscopy, endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), electromagnetic navigation, and combination bronchoscopies was assessed. Definitions for diagnostic and nondiagnostic bronchoscopies were rigorously predefined. The association of diagnostic yield with individual variables was examined by using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses where appropriate., Results: A total of 687 patients were included from 28 sites. Overall diagnostic yield was 69%; 80% for EBUS, 55% for bronchoscopy with biopsy ± fluoroscopy, 57% for electromagnetic navigation, and 74% for combination procedures (P < .001). Patients with larger, central lesions with adenopathy were significantly more likely to undergo a diagnostic bronchoscopy. Patients with pCA < 10% and 10% to 60% had lower yields (44% and 42%, respectively), whereas pCA > 60% yielded a positive result in 77% (P < .001). In multivariate logistic regression, the use of EBUS-TBNA, larger sized lesions, and central location were significantly associated with a diagnostic bronchoscopy. Seventeen percent of those with a malignant diagnosis and 28% of those with a benign diagnosis required secondary procedures to establish a diagnosis., Conclusions: This study is the first to assess the yield of bronchoscopy according to physician-assessed pCA in a large, prospective multicenter trial. The yield of bronchoscopy varied greatly according to physician suspicion that cancer is present, the patients' clinical/radiographic features, and the type of procedure performed. Of the procedures performed, EBUS-TBNA was the most likely to provide a diagnosis., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The field of biomarker development is evolving to assist in determining benign from malignant pulmonary nodules. Although a prospective clinical utility would best to show how a biomarker affects patient treatment and outcomes, we sought to begin to understand how the results might alter management by determining how physicians would use the results of a rule-in blood test to manage pulmonary nodules., Materials and Methods: Pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons in the American College of Chest Physicians clinician database were invited to participate in an online survey. The participant demographic data were collected. Four hypothetical clinical vignettes were presented. The participants accessed the pretest probability (probability of cancer [pCA]) for malignancy and chose the management strategies as the case progressed. The management strategies chosen before and after the result of a rule-in biomarker test were compared and assessed for guideline concordance., Results: Of the 455 eligible participants who had opened the survey, 416 (92%) completed it: 332 pulmonologists and 84 thoracic surgeons. Although 91% of the participants were very comfortable managing nodules, depending on the case, 30% to 62% incorrectly assessed the pCA, with 22% to 62% overestimating the risk and 8% to 51% underestimating the risk. After a rule-in blood test result, the clinician change in management moved in the right direction in some cases but, in others, the physicians used the results incorrectly. Pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons differed in the management strategies, with surgeons recommending surgery more often., Conclusions: Although the use of biomarker testing for pulmonary nodule evaluation is promising, without proper physician education, the potential for harm exists. Clinical utility studies are needed to appropriately inform the effect of biomarker use., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions continues to present clinical challenges, despite increasing experience using newer guided techniques. Robotic bronchoscopic platforms have been developed to potentially improve diagnostic yields. Previous studies in cadaver models have demonstrated increased reach into the lung periphery using robotic systems compared to similarly sized conventional bronchoscopes, although the clinical impact of additional reach is unclear., Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate the performance of a robotic bronchoscopic system's ability to reach and access artificial tumor targets simulating peripheral nodules in human cadaveric lungs., Methods: Artificial tumor targets sized 10-30 mm in axial diameter were implanted into 8 human cadavers. CT scans were performed prior to procedures and all cadavers were intubated and mechanically ventilated. Electromagnetic navigation, radial probe endobronchial ultrasound, and fluoroscopy were used for all procedures. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy was performed on each cadaver by an individual bronchoscopist to localize and biopsy peripheral lesions., Results: Sixty-seven nodules were evaluated in 8 cadavers. The mean nodule size was 20.4 mm. The overall diagnostic yield was 65/67 (97%) and there was no statistical difference in diagnostic yield for lesions <20 mm compared with lesions measuring 21-30 mm, the presence of a concentric or eccentric radial ultrasound image, or relative distance from the pleura., Conclusions: The robotic bronchoscopic system was successful at biopsying 97% of peripheral pulmonary lesions 10-30 mm in size in human cadavers. These findings support further exploration of this technology in prospective clinical trials in live human subjects., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Shared decision-making is an essential element of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. Understanding patient-level outcomes from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is critical to effectively communicate risks and benefits of screening to patients., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data collected in the NLST. We determined outcomes of each LDCT scan performed in the NLST (downstream evaluation, complications, lung cancer diagnoses), and compared outcomes at the test level with outcomes calculated at the patient level for those randomized to LDCT screening. To assess the impact of COPD on patient outcomes, we compared outcomes among patients with and without COPD., Results: Of 75,138 LDCT scans, 14.2% led to a diagnostic study and 1.5% to an invasive procedure, with 0.3% of LDCT scans resulting in a procedure-related complication and 0.1% in a serious complication. Among 24,453 patients who underwent LDCT screening, 30.5% underwent a diagnostic study and 4.2% an invasive procedure, with 0.9% of screened patients experiencing a procedure-related complication and 0.3% a serious complication. Patients with COPD (defined by self-report) were more likely to need a diagnostic study (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.29; P < .01) and an invasive procedure (aOR, 1.41; P < .01) and more likely to experience a complication (aOR, 1.83; P < .01) and a serious complication (aOR, 1.78; P = .01). Patients with COPD also were more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer (aOR, 1.43; P < .01)., Conclusions: We provide important patient-level data from the NLST that can be used to guide shared decision-making. The risk-to-benefit ratio of screening may vary significantly in some patients, such as those with COPD, in whom both risks and benefits of screening may be increased., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported substantial reduction in lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals screened annually with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT). As a result, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a B recommendation for annual LDCT in high-risk individuals, which requires private insurers to cover it without cost-sharing. The Medicare program also covers LDCT for high-risk beneficiaries without cost-sharing. However, the NLST findings may not be generalizable to the community setting because of differences in patients, providers, and practices participating in the NLST. Thus, examining uptake of LDCT screening in community practice is critical, as is evaluating the immediate and downstream outcomes of screening, including false-positive scans, follow-up examinations and adverse events, costs, stage of disease at diagnosis, and survival. This commentary presents an overview of the landscape of the data resources currently available to evaluate the uptake, outcomes, and costs of LDCT screening in the United States. We describe the strengths and limitations of existing data sources, including administrative databases, surveys, and registries. Thereafter, we provide recommendations for improving the data infrastructure pertaining to three overarching research areas: receipt of guideline-consistent screening and follow-up, weighing benefits and harms of screening, and costs of screening., (Published by Oxford University Press 2019.)

Screening with low-dose CT scan has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer in those at risk based on age and smoking history. While lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended by the United States Preventative Services Task Force and many professional societies, it has been recognized that the decision to be screened is complex due to a close balance of risk and benefit; therefore, shared decision-making is considered an essential component of effective LCS. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides coverage for LCS following a mandated shared-decision making (SDM) visit. Here we review the concept of SDM, facilitators and barriers, evidence and knowledge gaps, and novel considerations for SDM within LCS., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: New technology has resulted in bronchoscopy being increasingly used for diagnosing pulmonary lesions. Reported yield from these procedures varies widely with few randomized clinical trials. This study compares the diagnostic yield of a thin bronchoscope and radial endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) with standard bronchoscopy and fluoroscopy (SB-F) in lung lesions., Methods: Patients presenting for diagnostic bronchoscopic evaluation at five centers were randomized to undergo SB-F or R-EBUS with a thin bronchoscope (TB-EBUS). If SB-F was nondiagnostic, crossover to the TB-EBUS arm was allowed. Data on patient demographics, radiographic features, and final pathologic or radiographic follow-up were collected. Statistical comparisons were made by Fisher exact test, χ 2 test, and Student t test. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of diagnostic yield., Results: One hundred and ninety-seven patients were included in the final analyses. There was no difference in demographics, lesion size, or location between study arms. The average lesion size was 31.2 mm (SD, 10.8 mm). Bronchoscopy was diagnostic in 87 patients (44%). Although the diagnostic yield was higher in the TB-EBUS arm compared with the SB-F arm (49% vs 37%), this difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). Among those with nondiagnostic bronchoscopic findings in the standard arm, 87% (n = 46) crossed over to TB-EBUS, resulting in a diagnosis in seven additional patients (15% of 46)., Conclusions: Bronchoscopy with or without a thin scope and R-EBUS had a poor diagnostic yield for pulmonary lesions. Future work should focus on improvements in technique and technology advances that ensure a higher likelihood of obtaining a diagnosis., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)