Search

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. 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? 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. 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. 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. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 χ2 tests, stratified according to cigarette tar level, flavor, and filter. Logistic regression was used to study the influence of variables on smoking abstinence.Results: More than one-third of individuals presenting for lung cancer screening are highly addicted to nicotine and smoke within 5 min of waking up. Smokers of unfiltered cigarettes were more nicotine dependent compared with filtered cigarette smokers (OR, 1.32; P < .01). Although smokers of light/ultralight cigarettes had lower dependence (OR, 0.76, P < .0001), there was no difference in smoking abstinence compared with regular cigarette smokers. There was no difference in outcomes when comparing smokers of menthol vs unflavored cigarettes.Interpretation: In a screening population, the type of cigarette smoked is associated with different levels of dependence. Eliciting type of cigarette and time to first cigarette has the potential to allow for tailored tobacco treatment interventions within this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown.Objectives: To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting.Methods: The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned.Results: There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings.Conclusions: This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Molecular biomarkers have the potential to improve the current state of early lung cancer detection. The goal of this project was to develop a policy statement that provides guidance about the level of evidence required to determine that a molecular biomarker, used to support early lung cancer detection, is appropriate for clinical use.Methods: An ad hoc project steering committee was formed, to include individuals with expertise in the early detection of lung cancer and molecular biomarker development, from inside and outside of the Assembly on Thoracic Oncology. Key questions, generated from the results of a survey of the project steering committee, were discussed at an in-person meeting. Results of the discussion were summarized in a policy statement that was circulated to the steering committee and revised multiple times to achieve consensus.Results: With a focus on the clinical applications of lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation, the policy statement outlines categories of results that should be reported in the early phases of molecular biomarker development, discusses the level of evidence that would support study of the clinical utility, describes the outcomes that should be proven to consider a molecular biomarker clinically useful, and suggests study designs capable of assessing these outcomes.Conclusions: The application of molecular biomarkers to assist with the early detection of lung cancer has the potential to substantially improve our ability to select patients for lung cancer screening, and to assist with the characterization of indeterminate lung nodules. We have described relevant considerations and have suggested standards to apply when determining whether a molecular biomarker for the early detection of lung cancer is ready for clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Black patients with lung cancer diagnosed at early stages-for which surgical resection offers a potential cure-experience worse overall survival than do their white counterparts. We undertook a population-based study to estimate the racial and ethnic disparity in death from competing causes and assessed its contribution to the gap in overall survival among patients with early-stage lung cancer.Methods: We collected survival time data for 105,121 Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic black, and non-Hispanic white patients with early-stage (IA, IB, IIA, and IIB) lung cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results registries. We modeled survival time using competing risk regression and included as covariates sex, age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, stage at diagnosis, histologic type, type of surgical resection, and radiation sequence.Results: Adjusting for demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics, non-Hispanic blacks experienced worse overall survival compared with non-Hispanic whites (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08), whereas Hispanics and non-Hispanic Asians experienced better overall survival (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98; and aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86, respectively). Worse survival from competing causes of death, such as cardiovascular disease and other cancers-rather than from lung cancer itself-led to the disparity in overall survival among non-Hispanic blacks (adjusted relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12).Conclusions: Narrowing racial and ethnic disparities in survival among patients with early-stage lung cancer will rely on more than just equalizing access to surgical resection and will need to include better management and treatment of smoking-related comorbidities and diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals. Preventive healthcare is provided predominantly by primary care providers (PCPs). Successful implementation of a screening program requires acceptance and participation by both providers and patients, with available collaboration with pulmonologists.Objectives: To identify perceptions of and perspectives on lung cancer screening and implementation among PCPs and eligible veteran patients at high risk for lung cancer.Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using grounded theory in which 28 veterans and 13 PCPs completed a questionnaire and participated in focus groups. Sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed with NVivo 10 software. Counts and percentages were used to report questionnaire results.Measurements and Main Results: While 58% percent of providers were aware of lung cancer screening guidelines, many could not recall the exact patient eligibility criteria. Most patients were willing to undergo LDCT screening and identified smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer, but they did not recall their PCP explaining the reason for the testing. All providers assessed smoking behavior, but only 23% referred active smokers for formal cessation services. Patients volunteered information regarding their hurdles with smoking cessation while discussing risk factors for cancer. PCPs cited time constraints as a reason for lack of appropriate counseling and shared decision making. Both parties were willing to explore modalities and decision aid tools to improve shared decision making; however, while patients were interested in individual risk prediction, few PCPs believed statistical approaches to counseling would confuse patients.Conclusions: While patients and providers are receptive to LDCT screening, efforts are needed to improve guideline knowledge and adherence among providers. System-level interventions are necessary to facilitate time and resources for shared decision making and smoking cessation counseling and treatment. Further research is needed to identify optimal strategies for effective lung cancer screening in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on smoking trends and lung cancer mortality in the U.S. It explores various studies which examined the effects of smoking on health. The said studies predicted that 4.4 million Americans will die of lung cancer in the next half-century and countless more will die of other tobacco-related cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Rationale: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to decrease mortality in eligible high-risk patients. However, this mortality benefit comes with a high rate of false-positive findings, which require further evaluation.Objectives: To identify patient- and center-specific factors associated with having a pulmonary nodule on baseline LDCT, and to develop a prediction rule to help in shared decision making.Methods: We identified individuals who underwent baseline LDCT screening as part of the National Lung Screening Trial. A positive screen was defined as a nodule 4 mm or greater in largest dimension. Using multiple logistic regression, we identified variables independently associated with having a positive screen.Measurements and Main Results: Among the 26,004 patients with complete data who underwent baseline LDCT, 7,123 patients (27%) had a positive screen. In a multivariate analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03 per 1-year increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-1.04), female sex (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.01-1.14), white race (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.25-1.55), heavier smoking history (OR = 1.02 per 5 pack-years smoked over 30, 95% CI = 1.00-1.04), history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.01-1.17), being married (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.02-1.15), hard rock mining (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.04-1.89), and farm work (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.03-1.23) were independently associated with having a positive screen, whereas having a college degree (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.86-1.00) and abstinence from smoking (OR = 0.98 per year, 95% CI = 0.98-0.99) were associated with not having a positive screen. Patients enrolled at a site in an area highly endemic for histoplasma were 30% more likely to have a positive baseline LDCT screen (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.21-1.40). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the full model was 0.57 (0.56-0.58); including enrollment center as a random effect increased the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve to 0.65.Conclusions: In the National Lung Screening Trial, both patient- and center-specific factors were associated with having a positive baseline screen. Although the model does not have sufficient accuracy to provide personalized risk estimates to guide shared decision making on an individual basis, it can nonetheless inform screening centers of the likelihood of further follow-up testing for their populations at large when allocating resources. Data collected from centers as broad-based screening is implemented can be used to improve model accuracy further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pulmonary nodules (PNs) are a common reason for referral to pulmonologists. The majority of data for the evaluation and management of PNs is derived from studies performed in academic medical centers. Little is known about the prevalence and diagnosis of PNs, the use of diagnostic testing, or the management of PNs by community pulmonologists.Methods: This multicenter observational record review evaluated 377 patients aged 40 to 89 years referred to 18 geographically diverse community pulmonary practices for intermediate PNs (8-20 mm). Study measures included the prevalence of malignancy, procedure/test use, and nodule pretest probability of malignancy as calculated by two previously validated models. The relationship between calculated pretest probability and management decisions was evaluated.Results: The prevalence of malignancy was 25% (n = 94). Nearly one-half of the patients (46%, n = 175) had surveillance alone. Biopsy was performed on 125 patients (33.2%). A total of 77 patients (20.4%) underwent surgery, of whom 35% (n = 27) had benign disease. PET scan was used in 141 patients (37%). The false-positive rate for PET scan was 39% (95% CI, 27.1%-52.1%). Pretest probability of malignancy calculations showed that 9.5% (n = 36) were at a low risk, 79.6% (n = 300) were at a moderate risk, and 10.8% (n = 41) were at a high risk of malignancy. The rate of surgical resection was similar among the three groups (17%, 21%, 17%, respectively; P = .69).Conclusions: A substantial fraction of intermediate-sized nodules referred to pulmonologists ultimately prove to be lung cancer. Despite advances in imaging and nonsurgical biopsy techniques, invasive sampling of low-risk nodules and surgical resection of benign nodules remain common, suggesting a lack of adherence to guidelines for the management of PNs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Since publication of results from the National Lung Screening Trial, several professional organizations, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, have published guidelines recommending low-dose computed tomography for screening in asymptomatic, high-risk individuals. The benefits of screening include detection of cancer at an early stage when a definitive cure is possible, but the risks include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, psychological distress, and radiation exposure. The current review covers the scope of low-dose computed tomography screening, potential risks, costs, and future directions in the efforts for early detection of lung cancer. Cancer 2015;121:1347-1356. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which addresses the problems that are associated with decisions to use or not use chest radiography and computed tomography (CT) in lung cancer screenings in America as of 2017, and it mentions how many cigarette smokers continue to receive chest x-ray screenings rather than CT screenings. A recommendation regarding annual CT lung cancer screenings is examined, along with lung cancer diagnosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The article presents a study on the screening practices of primary care physicians in the U.S. to diagnose lung cancer which is the leading cause of cancer death in the country. It discusses how the study was conducted which involves a representative survey of 962 family physicians to assess their lung cancer screening practices and the characteristics of those who order the said tests. It details the study's results which revealed that most physicians order tests for asymptomatic patients.

The article discusses the outcomes and effectiveness of the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and chest radiography that was suggested to the heavy smokers for detection of lung cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a research study sponsored by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. It questions the reliability and authenticity of the methods adopted for diagnosis of cancer. It informs that NLST found that diagnosis of lung cancer at early stages might prove beneficial.

The article features research of Momen M. Wahidi and team on competency metrics and educational intervention on the bronchoscopy skills in pulmonary physicians in the U.S. Researchers did a prospective study on how to assess the level of doctors' bronchoscopy skills using various methods. They found that performance competency metrics is an effective tool to evaluate the said ability, while educational interventions can accelerate the skills of first-year pulmonary fellows.

The article focuses on the randomized, double-blind study in assessing the efficacy and safety of fospropofol disordium injection for moderate sedation in patients under flexible bronchoscopy in the U.S. Study shows that most frequent adverse events (AEs) were transient and self-limited paresthesias and pruritus of mild-to-moderate severity. It was found out that fosprofol provide safe and effective sedation for these patients.

Background: There has been resurgence of interest in lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. The implications of directing a screening programme at smokers has been little explored. Methods: A nationwide telephone survey was conducted. Demographics, certain clinical characteristics and attitudes about screening for lung cancer were ascertained. Responses of current, former and never smokers were compared. Results: 2001 people from the US were interviewed. Smokers were significantly (p<0.05) more likely than never smokers to be male, non-white, less educated, and to report poor health status or having had cancer, and less likely to be able to identify a usual source of healthcare. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to believe that early detection would result in a good chance of survival (p<0.05). Smokers were less likely to be willing to consider computed tomography screening for lung cancer (71 .2% (current smokers) v 87.6% (never smokers) odds ratio (OR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.71). More never smokers as opposed to current smokers believed that the risk of disease (88% v 56%) and the accuracy of the test (92% v 71%) were important determinants in deciding whether to be screened (p<0.05). Only half of the current smokers would opt for surgery for a screen-diagnosed cancer. Conclusion: The findings suggest that there may be substantial obstacles to the successful implementation of a mass-screening programme for lung cancer that will target cigarette smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study objectives: The American College of Chest Physicians has published guidelines recommending minimum competency requirements for 17 interventional pulmonary procedures. Our aim was to assess what procedures are offered to fellows in US pulmonary/critical care fellowships and to determine whether the recommended competency numbers are being met. Methods: Surveys were mailed to 122 pulmonary/critical care fellowship directors in the United States, and fellowship demographics, the types of procedures offered, and the average number of procedures performed were recorded. The presence of a dedicated interventional pulmonologist (IF) was ascertained, and procedural offerings and volume were compared with programs that did not have an IP. Results: The response rate of the survey was 77%. There was wide variation in the procedures offered by different programs. The presence of an IP was associated with an increased likelihood of advanced procedural training in brachytherapy (p < 0.05), electrocautery/argon plasma coagulation (p < 0.001), stents (p < 0.001), laser therapy (p < 0.01), rigid bronchoscopy (p < 0.001), and cryotherapy (p < 0.05). For only 3 of the 17 procedures did > 50% of the programs reach the targeted numbers to obtain competency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center frequently voice concern that air exposure during lung cancer surgery might cause tumor spread. Several African-American patients asserted that this belief was common in the African- American community. Objective: To assess the prevalence of the belief that air expo- sure during lung cancer surgery might cause tumor spread and gauge the influence of this belief on the willingness of African- American and white patients to have lung cancer surgery. Design: Prospective questionnaire survey. Setting: Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; and Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Patients: 626 consecutive patients in pulmonary and lung cancer clinics. Measurements: None. Results: 38% of patients (61% of whom were African American and 29% of whom were white) stated that they believe air expo- sure at surgery causes tumor spread. The most significant predictor of belief was African-American race (odds ratio, 3.5 [95% CI, 1.9 to 6.5]), even after controlling for other relevant variables in a multivariable analysis. Nineteen percent of African Americans stated that this belief was a reason for opposing surgery, and 14% would not accept their physicians' assertion that the belief is false. These rates were also statistically significantly higher among African-American than white patients. Conclusions: Belief in accelerated tumor spread at surgery is prevalent among general pulmonary outpatients and lung cancer clinic patients facing lung surgery, particularly among African- American patients. Our findings may pertain to key racial disparities in lung cancer surgery and survival rates and suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: 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: 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.)

Proposals for expanding Medicare insurance coverage to uninsured Americans approaching the Medicare eligibility age of sixty-five has been the subject of intense debate. We undertook this study to assess cancer survival differences between uninsured patients younger than age sixty-five and older Medicare beneficiaries by using data from the National Cancer Database from the period 2004-16. The main outcomes were survival at one, two, and five years for sixteen cancer types in 1,206,821 patients. We found that uninsured patients ages 60-64 were nearly twice as likely to present with late-stage disease and were significantly less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy than Medicare beneficiaries ages 66-69, despite lower comorbidity among younger patients. Compared with older Medicare patients, younger uninsured patients had strikingly lower five-year survival across cancer types. For instance, five-year survival in younger uninsured patients with late-stage breast or prostate cancer was 5-17 percent lower than that among older Medicare patients. We conclude that survival after a diagnosis of cancer is considerably lower in younger uninsured patients than in older Medicare patients. Expanding comprehensive health insurance coverage to people approaching Medicare age eligibility may improve cancer outcomes in the US.

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.

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.)

Rationale: Black individuals with lung cancer (LC) experience higher mortality because they present with more advanced disease and are less likely to undergo curative resection for early-stage disease. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated improved LC mortality by screening high-risk patients with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The benefit of LDCT screening in black individuals is unknown., Objectives: Examine results of the NLST by race., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial (NCT00047385) performed in 33 U.S. centers., Measurements and Main Results: Overall and lung cancer-specific mortality were measured. Screening with LDCT reduced LC mortality in all racial groups but more so in black individuals (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 vs. 0.86). Smoking increased the likelihood of death from LC, and when stratified by race black smokers were twice as likely to die as white smokers (HR, 4.10 vs. 2.25). Adjusting for sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics, black individuals experienced higher all-cause mortality than white individuals (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.49); however, black individuals screened with LDCT had a reduction in all-cause mortality. Black individuals were younger, were more likely to be current smokers, had more comorbidities, and had fewer years of formal education than white individuals (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Black individuals screened with LDCT had decreased mortality from lung cancer. However, the demographics associated with improved LC survival were less commonly found in black individuals. The overall mortality in the NLST was higher for black individuals than white individuals, but improved in black individuals screened, suggesting that this subgroup may have had improved access to care. To realize the reductions in mortality from LC screening, dissemination efforts need to be tailored to meet the needs of this community.

Background: Linear endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) allows real-time guidance of transbronchial needle aspiration of thoracic structures and has become an increasingly important diagnostic tool for chest physicians. Little has been published about the learning experience of operators with this technology. The purpose of this study was to define the learning experience of EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) among pulmonary trainees., Methods: This was a multicenter cohort study of fellows in pulmonary medicine over the first 2 years of their training. Prior to performing EBUS-TBNA, all participants had to complete 30 conventional bronchoscopies, an EBUS-specific didactic curriculum, and a simulation session with a plastic airway model. Each consecutive EBUS procedure was scored with a checklist that evaluated the ability to pass a bronchoscope through vocal cords, identify the appropriate node for sampling, acquire adequate ultrasound images, guide the bronchoscopy team through the technical steps of EBUS-TBNA, and obtain adequate tissue samples., Results: Thirteen pulmonary trainees from three training programs were enrolled in the study and were observed over a 2-year period. The majority of trainees were able to perform all essential steps of EBUS-TBNA and obtain adequate tissue after performing an average of 13 (95% CI, 7-16) procedures., Conclusions: Pulmonary trainees needed an average of 13 procedures to achieve first independent successful performance of EBUS-TBNA following a training protocol that included a didactic curriculum and simulation-based practice. Our findings could guide pulmonary fellowship directors in planning EBUS training and establishing a reasonable juncture to assess EBUS skills with validated assessment tools.

Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death for veterans cared for by the US Veterans Health Administration. The LC burden among veterans is almost double that of the general population. Before implementation of an LC screening program, we set out to assess the role of beliefs and attitudes toward LC screening among veterans., Methods: Veterans presenting to the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center were invited to complete a self-administered survey. The survey comprised questions about demographics, smoking status, health status, and knowledge about LC and willingness to be screened. Responses from veteran ever and never smokers were compared., Results: A total of 209 veterans completed the survey. Smokers were significantly (P &lt; .05) more likely than never smokers to be less educated, have a lower income, and report poorer health. Smokers were more likely than never smokers to have two or more comorbidities, which trended toward significance (P = .062). Smokers were more likely to have been told by a physician that they were at high risk for LC and to believe that they were at risk. Nearly all veterans surveyed (92.8%) would have a CT scan for LC screening, and 92.4% would have surgery for a screen-detected LC., Conclusions: Veterans are overwhelmingly willing to undergo screening for LC, and it seems that participation will not be a barrier to implementation of an LC screening program. The mortality benefit of LC screening, however, may not be generalizable to the veteran population because of a higher number of comorbid conditions.

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) has revolutionized the ability of bronchoscopists to visualize and sample structures surrounding the tracheobronchial tree. It has been shown to be safe, minimally invasive, and highly accurate in the staging and diagnosing of mediastinal diseases. A prior survey of pulmonary fellowship program directors conducted in 2004 showed that only 2% of programs offered EBUS training., Methods: Surveys were mailed to 154 pulmonary/critical care fellowship directors in the United States and Puerto Rico. Demographics of the fellowship and details of EBUS training were recorded. A comparison of EBUS volume was made between programs with and without an identifiable interventional pulmonologist (IP)., Results: The survey response rate was 71%. EBUS equipment was available at 89% of programs. Of those without EBUS, 100% expressed the goal of obtaining equipment within the year. An identifiable IP was present in 70% of programs. This was associated with more EBUS procedures performed by trainees ( P , .01). Only 30% of programs have a formal protocol in place to evaluate EBUS competency. Conventional transbronchial needle aspiration is routinely taught in 89% of fellowship programs., Conclusions: EBUS exposure has rapidly disseminated into fellowship training programs, and programs with an identifiable IP are more likely to provide fellows with more EBUS procedures. The findings of this survey point out the need to develop a standardized protocol for EBUS competency that includes current recommendations and may require training with simulation.

Behaviors pertaining to tobacco use have changed significantly over the past century. Compared with 1964, smoking prevalence rates have halved from 40% to 20%, and as a result there has been a slow but steady decline in the rates of tobacco-induced diseases such as heart disease and cancer. Growing awareness of the health risks of smoking was aided by the US Surgeon Reports that were issued on a nearly annual basis starting from 1964. Concerns about the hazards of breathing in second-hand smoke further contributed to the declining social acceptance of smoking, which evolved into regulatory actions restricting smoking on buses, planes, retail outlets, restaurants, and bars. Today, 23 states and 493 localities have comprehensive laws restricting indoor smoking. This paper examines public policies that have made a significant impact on smoking and lung cancer rates and discusses potential future research directions to further reduce the diseases caused by smoking.

Context: Although there is a documented need to improve end-of-life care, there are few validated and brief questionnaires that are available as outcome measures for use in improving that care., Objectives: To examine the measurement characteristics of the Quality of End-of-Life Care (QEOLC) questionnaire., Methods: In a multisite, cross-sectional study of a mailed questionnaire, patients with life-limiting illnesses, their families, and nurses completed the QEOLC questionnaire. Patients and nurses were identified by physicians, and families were identified by participating patients. Physicians included general internists, oncologists, cardiologists, and pulmonologists from the Southeast and Pacific Northwest of the United States., Results: Eight hundred one patients, 310 of their families, and 885 nurses were identified by 85 physicians. Using structural equation modeling techniques corrected for clustering under physicians, we identified a patient-specific factor based on 11 items, a family-specific factor based on 22 items, a nurse-specific factor based on 11 items, and a common single-factor solution based on 10 items. Construct validity was supported by significant associations in the hypothesized direction between the identified QEOLC factors and each of the following: physician palliative care knowledge, patients' and families' ratings of overall quality of care, and patients' levels of symptom distress., Conclusion: Although continued testing in heterogeneous samples is necessary, the current study supported the construct validity of the QEOLC questionnaire to assess physician skill at end-of-life care, thereby providing valid measures of quality end-of-life care. Furthermore, this approach is a model for development and validation of patient- and family-centered assessments of quality of care., (Copyright 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: This study was designed to identify nurses' perspectives on nursing skills that are important yet under-utilized in end-of-life care., Methods: A 45-item survey was administered to nurses (n = 717) in four U.S. states with a response rate of 79%. We identified skills that were endorsed by more than 60% of nurses as extremely important and also endorsed as not currently practiced by more than 25% of nurses. We used Chi square statistics to examine professional characteristics associated with ratings of end-of-life care skills including practice settings, years of experience, and end-of-life care education. Content analysis was used to examine nurses' responses to open-ended questions., Results: Nineteen items were endorsed as extremely important and also ranked as under-utilized. These end-of-life care skills included communication skills, symptom management competencies especially those concerning anxiety and depression, and issues related to patient-centered care systems. Four complementary themes emerged from qualitative analysis of nurses' comments, which supported the quantitative findings., Conclusions: This study provides a summary of skills nurses feel are important and under-utilized in their care of patients with life-limiting illnesses. The findings support the need to target both nursing education and healthcare system interventions to improve the use of practical end-of-life care skills by nurses with a focus on communication and symptom management skills.

The issue of tobacco industry responsibility for population health problems and compensation for their treatment has been growing since the 1960s. In 1999, the state attorneys general collectively launched the largest class action lawsuit in US history and sued the tobacco industry to recover the costs of caring for smokers. In what became known as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), states were rewarded billions of dollars and won concessions regarding how cigarettes could be advertised and targeted to minors. Ten years after this settlement, much is known about how MSA monies were distributed and how states have used the money. There is some understanding about how much of the money went toward offsetting the health-care costs attributable to smoking and whether resources were allocated to efforts to reduce smoking in a particular state. However, there are few data on what effect, if any, the MSA had on tobacco control locally and nationally. This commentary explores these issues, as well as how the tobacco industry has evolved to offset the losses incurred by the settlement. Finally, an analysis of the complexities of current tobacco policy making is provided so that physicians and other health-care advocacy groups can more completely understand the present-day political dynamics and be more effective in shaping tobacco control policy in the future.

Objective: To determine the influence of self-reported preadmission quality of life, hypothetical quality of life and mortality prognosis, and length and intensity of intensive care on decision making in the seriously ill and elderly., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Medical university., Subjects: Adult inpatients with chronic illness and an estimated 50% 6-month mortality along with patients > or =80 yrs old with an acute illness., Interventions: Patients were presented with two scenarios: a) mechanical ventilation for 14 days; and 2) mechanical ventilation for 1 month with tracheostomy and feeding tube placement. A modified time trade-off was used to vary survival and quality of life over plausible ranges. Patients could consent to intensive care or choose care directed at comfort measures., Measurements and Main Results: Fifty patients were interviewed. As projected intensive care unit mortality rate or postintensive care unit quality of life decreased, patients were less likely to consent to intensive care. Postintensive care quality of life was as important to patients as intensive care survival estimates. However, prehospitalization quality of life did not significantly influence decision making regarding life-extending treatment. When progressing from the acute intensive care scenario to chronic mechanical ventilation with associated interventions, patients demanded a significant increase in survival and quality of life. Neither race nor previous intensive care unit admission was associated with consent to intensive care., Conclusions: There is wide variation in preference for aggressive care that does not appear to be influenced by prehospitalization quality of life. However, predicted quality of life appears to be as important as estimates of intensive care unit survival in decision making. When confronted with extended mechanical ventilation and associated care, a significant proportion of patients would accept this care only for an improved prognosis. Length and intensity of intensive care should be incorporated into discussions regarding intensive care.