Search

Objectives: The relationship between marijuana use and markers of chronic lung disease in people living with HIV (PLWH) is poorly understood. Methods: We performed a cross‐sectional analysis of the Examinations of HIV‐Associated Lung Emphysema (EXHALE) study, including 162 HIV‐positive patients and 138 participants without HIV. We modelled marijuana exposure as: (i) current daily or weekly marijuana smoking vs. monthly or less often; or (ii) cumulative marijuana smoking (joint‐years). Linear and logistic regression estimated associations between marijuana exposure and markers of lung disease, adjusted for tobacco smoking and other factors. Results: In PLWH, current daily or weekly marijuana use was associated with a larger forced vital capacity (FVC), larger total lung capacity and increased odds of radiographic emphysema compared with marijuana non‐smokers in adjusted models; these associations were not statistically significant in participants without HIV. Marijuana joint‐years were associated with higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s and FVC in PLWH but not with emphysema. Conclusions: In PLWH, marijuana smoking was associated with higher lung volumes and potentially with radiographic emphysema. No consistently negative associations were observed between marijuana and measures of chronic lung health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose . Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, with most cases attributable to cigarette smoking. Many communities within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) umbrella have high rates of smoking, but focused lung cancer prevention is limited. Our objective was to utilize a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to guide the development of a program focused on lung cancer prevention in LGBTQ+ elders. Methods . Through community partnerships, we recruited participants who self-identified as LGBTQ+ and were eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) to participate in semi-structured qualitative discussions with complementary surveys. Qualitative guides were developed to collect data on determinants of smoking cessation and LCS and to elicit feedback on interventions to support lung cancer prevention through a tailored approach to patient navigation. Qualitative data were analyzed using rapid templated analysis to elucidate themes. Results . The 21 enrolled participants had diverse sexual and gender identities and 57% were of minoritized race/ethnicity. Most (81%) had experience with smoking cessation but few (10%) had undergone LCS. Overall themes suggest interest in personalized (to individuals), tailored (to the LGBTQ+ community) and integrated longitudinal programs to support lung cancer prevention. Themes suggest strong endorsement of focused messaging to LGBTQ+ persons and reducing stigma related to LGBTQ+ identity and smoking. Conclusions . Themes highlight the need for integrated tobacco and LCS programming which can provide longitudinal support, and ideally, center community settings and peer support. This formative work will be utilized to adapt a patient navigation program to assist screen-eligible LGBTQ+ elders.

Background: People with HIV are both at elevated risk of lung cancer and at high risk of multimorbidity, which makes shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) in people with HIV complex. Currently no known tools have been adapted for SDM in people with HIV., Research Question: Can an SDM decision aid be adapted to include HIV-specific measures with input from both people with HIV and their providers?, Study Design and Methods: This study used qualitative methods including focus groups of people with HIV and interviews with HIV care providers to adapt and iterate an SDM tool for people with HIV. Eligible participants were those with HIV enrolled in an HIV primary care clinic who met age and smoking eligibility criteria for LCS and HIV care providers at the clinic. Both the focus groups and interviews included semistructured discussions of SDM and decision aid elements for people with HIV. We used a framework-guided thematic analysis, mapping themes onto the Health Equity Implementation framework., Results: Forty-three people with HIV participated in eight focus groups; 10 providers were interviewed. Key themes from patients included broad interest in adapting LCS SDM specifically for people with HIV, a preference for clear LCS recommendations, and the need for positive framing emphasizing survival. Providers were enthusiastic about personalized LCS risk assessments and point-of-care tools. Both patients and providers gave mixed views on the usefulness of HIV-specific risk measures in patient-facing tools. Themes were used to adapt a personalized and flexible SDM tool for LCS in people with HIV., Interpretation: People with HIV and providers were enthusiastic about specific tools for SDM that are personalized and tailored for people with HIV, that make recommendations, and that inform LCS decision-making. Divergent views on presenting patient-facing quantitative risk assessments suggests that these elements could be optional but available for review. This tool may have usefulness in complex decision-making for LCS in this population and currently is being evaluated in a pilot prospective trial.

Purpose: Sexual and gender minoritized (SGM) populations face health disparities along the cancer care continuum, although attempts to define these disparities are limited by a lack of comprehensive sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection. The objective of this study was to interview a diverse group of stakeholders to understand attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to inform data collection approaches in a cancer care setting. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted from March to July 2023 with paired surveys of stakeholders including patients, caregivers, providers, and cancer registry staff. Twenty participants across these categories, including half who identified as SGM, completed surveys and interviews. Qualitative data were reduced to themes with exemplar quotations using rapid qualitative analysis methods and compared to survey data. Results: Themes revealed general support for SOGI data collection as part of holistic cancer care, and all participants acknowledged that specific SOGI-related information, particularly correct pronoun usage, was essential to inform patient-centered care. Themes revealed tensions around optimal SOGI data collection methods, mixed opinions on the relevance of sexual orientation, experiences of discrimination and discomfort related to SOGI, and limited acknowledgment of population benefits of SOGI data collection. Conclusion: Themes demonstrated overall support for SOGI data collection but also revealed several barriers, such as a lack of recognition of population benefits and experiences of discrimination and discomfort, that will need to be addressed to comprehensively collect these data. Based on diverse preferences and limitations of all methods of collection, a multimodal approach may be needed to optimize completion.

Background: People with HIV are at increased risk for lung cancer and multimorbidity, complicating the balance of risks and benefits of lung cancer screening. We previously adapted Decision Precision (screenlc.com) to guide shared decision-making for lung cancer screening in people with HIV., Research Question: Does an HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improve shared decision-making regarding lung cancer screening in people with HIV as measured by knowledge, decisional conflict, and acceptability?, Study Design and Methods: This was a single-arm pilot trial of the decision aid in 40 participants with HIV eligible for lung cancer screening. The decision aid included personalized screening recommendations and HIV-specific, 5-year risk estimates of lung cancer and all-cause mortality. Participants reviewed the decision aid at shared decision-making visits and completed previsit and postvisit surveys with measures of knowledge about lung cancer screening, acceptability, and decisional conflict., Results: The 40 enrolled participants were a median age of 62 years, 60% currently smoked, and they had median 5-year risks of lung cancer and all-cause mortality of 2.0% (IQR, 1.4%-3.3%) and 4.1% (IQR, 3.3%-7.9%), respectively. Personalized recommendations included "Encourage Screening" for 53% of participants and "Preference Sensitive" recommendations for the remainder. Participants showed improvement in two validated knowledge measures with relative improvement of 60% (P < 0.001) on the 12-question lung cancer screening knowledge test and 27% (P < .001) on the seven-question lung cancer screening knowledge score, with significant improvement on questions regarding false-positive and false-negative findings, incidental findings, lung cancer-specific mortality benefit, and the possible harms of screening. Participants reported low scores on the decisional conflict scale (median score, 0; interquartile range, 0-5) and high acceptability. Ninety percent of patients ultimately underwent screening within 1 month of the visit., Interpretation: In our study, this HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improved participants' knowledge of risks, benefits, and characteristics of screening with low decisional conflict and high acceptability. Our results indicate that this decision aid can enable high-quality shared decision-making in this high-risk population., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04682301; URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: M. T. reports unrelated consultation fees from G02 Foundation. None declared (N. R. M., K. C., M. S., J. Z. B., M. C. B., B. J. W., N. G., T. C., K. Durette, K. DeCell)., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people, and AI/AN people have the highest rate of smoking of any racial or ethnic group in the US. There is limited research to inform culturally-relevant strategies for lung cancer prevention inclusive of lung cancer screening (LCS). The objective of this study was to understand determinants of LCS and tobacco cessation care in at-risk urban-dwelling AI/ANs., Materials and Methods: This was a mixed-methods community-based participatory research study including complimentary qualitative discussions and surveys conducted in Seattle, Washington, USA from 2022 to 2023. The study measures and analytic approach integrated the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Tribal Critical Race Theory and qualitative transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were self-identified AI/AN people who were age ≥ 40 and had ≥ 10-year history of commercial cigarette smoking., Results: Forty-five participants completed surveys and participated in discussions, 48% were female, the median age was 58 and median smoking history was 24 pack-years of commercial cigarette use. Themes revealed prominent barriers to LCS care including access, costs, awareness, and fear. Many reported previous negative and discriminatory encounters within and outside the health system which may also serve as barriers. Most participants endorsed cancer screening and increased education, recommending Indigenous-centered, delivered, and tailored programs, as well barrier-directed support., Conclusions: In a broad sample of at-risk urban-dwelling AI/AN people, our findings suggest enthusiasm for preventive care but several complex barriers. Participants endorsed culturally-tailored programs which could provide relevant education and address barriers., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Matthew Triplette reports financial support was provided by National Cancer Institute. Matthew Triplette reports financial support was provided by the American Thoracic Society, CHEST Foundation and American Lung Association. Matthew Triplette reports a relationship with GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence., Methods: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders., Discussion: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings., Registration: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443)., 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 Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up., Study Design: This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery., Setting/participants: Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either: 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention)., Intervention: A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers., Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations., Results: 389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007)., Conclusions: There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible component of a multi-level intervention to address knowledge and follow-up for LCS., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05265897., Competing Interests: Mr. Hippe reports research grants from GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, and Canon Medical Systems USA outside the submitted work. The other authors have no other competing interests to report., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Introduction: People with HIV are at higher risk of lung cancer; however, there is limited research on attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to lung cancer screening in people with HIV. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives on lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers., Methods: Surveys of people with HIV and HIV-care providers were complemented by qualitative focus groups and interviews designed to understand the determinants of lung cancer screening in people with HIV. Participants were recruited through an academic HIV clinic in Seattle, WA. Qualitative guides were developed by integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases checklist. Themes that emerged from thematic analyses of qualitative data were compared with surveys in joint displays. All study components were conducted between 2021 and 2022., Results: Sixty-four people with HIV completed surveys, and 43 participated in focus groups. Eleven providers completed surveys, and 10 were interviewed for the study. Themes from joint displays show overall enthusiasm for lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers, particularly with a tailored and evidence-based approach. Facilitators in this population may include longstanding engagement with providers and health systems and an emphasis on survivorship through preventive healthcare interventions. People with HIV may also face barriers acknowledged by providers, including a high level of medical comorbidities and competing issues such as substance abuse, mental health concerns, and economic instability., Conclusions: This study reveals that people with HIV and their providers have overall enthusiasm toward screening. However, tailored interventions may be needed to overcome specific barriers, including complex decision making in the setting of medical comorbidity and patient competing issues., (Copyright © 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify factors associated with the minimum necessary information to determine an individual’s eligibility for lung cancer screening (ie, sufficient risk factor documentation) and to characterize clinic-level variability in documentation., Study Design: Cross-sectional observational study using electronic health record data from an academic health system in 2019., Methods: We calculated the relative risk of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation by patient-, provider-, and system-level variables using Poisson regression models, clustering by clinic. We compared unadjusted, risk-adjusted, and reliability-adjusted proportions of patients with sufficient smoking documentation across 31 clinics using logistic regression models and 2-level hierarchical logit models to estimate reliability-adjusted proportions across clinics., Results: Among 20,632 individuals, 60% had sufficient risk factor documentation to determine screening eligibility. Patient-level factors inversely associated with risk factor documentation included Black race (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81), non-English preferred language (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74), Medicaid insurance (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71), and nonactivated patient portal (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90). Documentation varied across clinics. The reliability-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 11.0% (95% CI, 6.9%-17.1%) to 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.6%), adjusting for covariates., Conclusions: We found a low rate of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation and associations of risk factor documentation based on patient-level factors such as race, insurance status, language, and patient portal activation. Risk factor documentation rates varied across clinics, and only approximately half the variation was explained by factors in our analysis.

Rationale: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is an effective tool to reduce mortality. However, barriers along the LCS care continuum, including delay in follow-up care, may reduce effectiveness. Objectives: The primary goals of this study were to evaluate delays in follow-up in patients with positive findings on LCS and to examine the impact of delay on lung cancer staging. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in a multisite LCS program with positive LCS findings, defined as Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Time to first follow-up was evaluated with delay considered >30 days beyond the standardized Lung-RADS recommendation. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the likelihood of delay by Lung-RADS category. Participants with resultant non-small cell lung cancer were evaluated to determine if delay in follow-up was associated with clinical upstaging. Results: Three hundred sixty-nine patients with 434 examinations had positive findings; 16% of findings were ultimately diagnosed as lung cancer. In 47% of positive examinations, there was a delay in follow-up (median delay, 104 d), representing 59% (210 d) of Lung-RADS 3 examinations, 35% (64 d) of Lung-RADS 4A examinations, and 40% (34 d) of Lung-RADS 4B/4X examinations ( P  < 0.001). In the 54 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer through LCS, delay was associated with increased likelihood of clinical upstaging ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study of delay in follow-up after positive LCS findings, we found that nearly half of patients had delays in follow-up and that delay was associated with clinical upstaging in patients whose positive findings represented lung cancer. Further targeted interventions to ensure timely follow-up after positive LCS examination are critical.

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

Although the harmful effects of smoking after a cancer diagnosis have been clearly demonstrated, many patients continue to smoke cigarettes during treatment and beyond. The NCCN Guidelines for Smoking Cessation emphasize the importance of smoking cessation in all patients with cancer and seek to establish evidence-based recommendations tailored to the unique needs and concerns of patients with cancer. The recommendations contained herein describe interventions for cessation of all combustible tobacco products (eg, cigarettes, cigars, hookah), including smokeless tobacco products. However, recommendations are based on studies of cigarette smoking. The NCCN Smoking Cessation Panel recommends that treatment plans for all patients with cancer who smoke include the following 3 tenets that should be done concurrently: (1) evidence-based motivational strategies and behavior therapy (counseling), which can be brief; (2) evidence-based pharmacotherapy; and (3) close follow-up with retreatment as needed.

Background: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) has mortality benefits for eligible participants; however, studies demonstrate low adherence to follow-up LCS., Research Question: What are patients' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adherence to annual LCS?, Study Design and Methods: Forty participants enrolled in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS program completed a demographic questionnaire and a semistructured interview based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework to determine attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to longitudinal LCS. Interviews were coded using principles of framework analysis to identify and compare themes between adherent and nonadherent participants., Results: The 40 participants underwent initial LCS in 2017 with negative results. Seventeen were adherent to follow-up annual LCS, whereas 23 were not. Seven overall themes emerged from qualitative analysis, which are summarized as follows: (1) screening experiences are positive and participants have positive attitudes toward screening; (2) provider recommendation is a motivator and key facilitator for most patients; (3) many patients are influenced by personal factors and symptoms and do not understand the importance of asymptomatic screening; (4) common barriers to longitudinal screening include cost, insurance coverage, accessibility, and other medical conditions; (5) patients have variable preferences about how they receive their screening results, and many have residual questions about their results and future screening; (6) reminders are an important facilitator of annual screening; and (7) most patients think a navigator would be beneficial to the screening process, with different aspects of navigation thought to be most helpful. Those who were not adherent more commonly reported individual barriers to screening, competing health concerns, and less provider communication., Interpretation: Key facilitators (eg, patient reminders, provider recommendations) may improve long-term screening behavior, and a number of barriers to the screening process could be addressed through patient navigation., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Rationale: Adherence to follow-up lung cancer screening (LCS) in real-world settings is suboptimal. Patient understanding of screening results and anticipated follow-up may be crucial to adherence. Objectives: To determine patient factors associated with identification of follow-up recommendations as a measure of patient understanding of screening results after LCS, and to determine whether misidentification of follow-up is associated with lower adherence to recommendations. Methods: We performed a prospective study of patients in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS registry who underwent an initial LCS examination between June 2017 and September 2019. We mailed potential participants a survey after the initial LCS examination, with additional data abstracted from the electronic health record and LCS registry. Participants were asked to identify the timing and next step for their follow-up, with answers corresponding to the lung imaging reporting and data system (Lung-RADS) recommendations. We examined associations between incorrect identification of recommended follow-up and patient-level characteristics, self-perceived benefit/harm of LCS, LCS knowledge, Lung-RADS score, and patient-reported method of LCS results communication (letter, telephone, or in-person). We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with incorrect identification of recommendations and assessed incorrect identification of recommendations as a potential mechanism for poor adherence in a separate regression model. Results: One hundred eighty-eight participants completed the survey (response rate 44%); 47% misidentified their follow-up recommendation. Those with Lung-RADS scores ⩾3 had higher odds of incorrectly identifying follow-up recommendations than those with scores <3, as did those with lower educational attainment. However, there was no significant association between incorrect identification of follow-up and ultimate adherence to follow-up. Conclusions: Understanding of LCS follow-up appears to be poor, especially among those with lower education levels and positive findings. Among survey responders, incorrect identification of follow-up was not associated with poor adherence, suggesting that other factors, such as provider interventions, may be driving adherence behavior. These results can inform efforts to target improved patient education regarding follow-up for LCS.

Abstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common in people living with HIV (PLWH). We sought to evaluate the appropriateness of COPD diagnosis and management in PLWH, comparing results to HIV-uninfected persons.We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Veterans enrolled in the Examinations of HIV-Associated Lung Emphysema study, in which all participants underwent spirometry at enrollment and reported respiratory symptoms on self-completed surveys. Primary outcomes were misdiagnosis and under-diagnosis of COPD, and the frequency and appropriateness of inhaler prescriptions. Misdiagnosis was defined as having an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis of COPD without spirometric airflow limitation (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1-second [FEV1]/Forced vital capacity [FVC] < 0.7). Under-diagnosis was defined as having spirometry-defined COPD without a prior ICD-9 diagnosis.The analytic cohort included 183 PLWH and 152 HIV-uninfected participants. Of 25 PLWH with an ICD-9 diagnosis of COPD, 56% were misdiagnosed. Of 38 PLWH with spirometry-defined COPD, 71% were under-diagnosed. In PLWH under-diagnosed with COPD, 85% reported respiratory symptoms. Among PLWH with an ICD-9 COPD diagnosis as well as in those with spirometry-defined COPD, long-acting inhalers, particularly long-acting bronchodilators (both beta-agonists and muscarinic antagonists) were prescribed infrequently even in symptomatic individuals. Inhaled corticosteroids were the most frequently prescribed long-acting inhaler in PLWH (28%). Results were overall similar amongst the HIV-uninfected.COPD was frequently misdiagnosed and under-diagnosed in PLWH, similar to uninfected-veterans. Among PLWH with COPD and a likely indication for therapy, long-acting inhalers were prescribed infrequently, particularly guideline-concordant, first-line long-acting bronchodilators. Although not a first-line controller therapy for COPD, inhaled corticosteroids were prescribed more often., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective at reducing mortality for high-risk smokers. Mortality benefits go beyond early cancer detection, because shared decision-making (SDM) may present a "teachable moment" to reinforce cessation and provide resources., Research Question: How well is smoking cessation performed during LCS SDM encounters, and what patient and provider characteristics are associated with smoking cessation assistance?, Study Design and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of current smokers participating in initial LCS SDM through a multisite program in Seattle, Washington, between 2015-2018. The LCS tracking database and electronic health record were reviewed for demographics, comorbidity data, and clinical encounter information. The primary outcome was provision of a smoking cessation resource, defined as referral to cessation resources, recommendation for nicotine replacement, or prescription for cessation medication. Participant and provider factor associations with the outcome were evaluated using χ 2 testing and multivariable logistic regression., Results: Most of the 423 study participants were men (70%), with a median age of 61 (IQR, 58-66) years and median of 50 (41-72) pack-years of smoking. Only 26% of encounters had documentation consistent with SDM. Thirty-nine percent of participants received at least one smoking cessation resource, and only 5% received both counseling referrals and medication. In a multivariable model, the provision of any smoking cessation resource was half as likely in participants with higher levels of comorbidity (Charlson Index >2; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81), and half as likely if the ordering provider was not the patient's PCP or their specialist (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96)., Interpretation: Overall provision of smoking cessation resources was moderate during SDM encounters for LCS, and lower in patients with more comorbidities and when not performed by the patient's PCP or specialist. Interventions are needed to improve smoking cessation counseling and resource utilization at the time of LCS encounters., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure. Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS. Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS. Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Background: Lung cancer screening, despite its proven mortality benefit, remains vastly underutilized. Previous studies examined knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs to better understand the reasons underlying the low screening rates. These investigations may have limited generalizability because of traditional participant recruitment strategies and examining only subpopulations eligible for screening. The current study used crowdsourcing to recruit a broader population to assess these factors in a potentially more general population., Methods: A 31-item survey was developed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding screening among individuals considered high risk for lung cancer by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Amazon's crowdsourcing platform (Mechanical Turk) was used to recruit subjects., Results: Among the 240 respondents who qualified for the study, 106 (44%) reported knowledge of a screening test for lung cancer. However, only 36 (35%) correctly identified low-dose CT scanning as the appropriate test. A total of 222 respondents (93%) reported believing that early detection of lung cancer has the potential to save lives, and 165 (69%) were willing to undergo lung cancer screening if it was recommended by their physician. Multivariable regression analysis found that knowledge of lung cancer screening, smoking status, chronic pulmonary disease, and belief in the efficacy of early detection of lung cancer were associated with willingness to screen., Conclusions: Although a minority of individuals at high risk for lung cancer are aware of screening, the majority believe that early detection saves lives and would pursue screening if recommended by their primary care physician. Health systems may increase screening rates by improving patient and physician awareness of lung cancer screening., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Despite a known mortality benefit, lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation has been unexpectedly slow. New programs face barriers to implementation, which may include lack of clinician engagement or beliefs that the intervention is not beneficial., Objective: To evaluate diverse clinician perspectives on their views of LCS and their experience with LCS implementation and processes., Methods: We performed a qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS. Clinicians were drawn from three medical centers, representing diverse specialties and practice settings. All participants practiced at sites with formal lung cancer screening programs. We performed semi-structured interviews with probes designed to elicit opinions of LCS, perceived evidence gaps, and recommendations for improvements. Transcribed interviews were iteratively reviewed and coded using directed content analysis., Results: Participants (n=24) included LCS coordinators, pulmonologists, physician and non-physician primary care providers (PCPs), a surgeon, and a radiologist. Most clinicians expressed that the evidence supporting LCS was adequate to support clinical adoption, though most PCPs had little direct knowledge and based decisions on local recommendations or endorsement by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). Many PCPs endorsed lack of knowledge of eligibility requirements and screening strategy (e.g. annual while eligible). Clinicians with more lung cancer screening knowledge, including several PCPs, identified a number of gaps in the current evidence that tempered enthusiasm, including: unclear ideal screening interval, populations with high cancer risk that do not qualify under USPSTF, indications to stop screening, and the role of serious comorbidities. Support for centralized programs and LCS coordinators was strong, but not uniform. Clinicians were frustrated by time limitations during a patient encounter, costs to the patient, and issues with insurance coverage. Many gaps in informatics support were identified. Clinicians recommended working to improve informatics support, continuing to clarify clinician responsibilities, and working on increasing public awareness of LCS., Conclusions: Despite working within programs that have adopted many recommended care processes to support LCS, clinicians identified a number of issues in providing high-quality LCS. Many of these issues are best addressed by improved support of LCS within the electronic health record and continued education of staff and patients.

Background: Chronic inflammation, innate immune activation, T-cell imbalance and endothelial activation have been linked with lung diseases. We sought to determine whether markers of these pathophysiologic pathways were associated with spirometry and chest computed tomography (CT) abnormalities among adolescents living with HIV (ALWH)., Setting: Coptic Hope Center for Infectious Diseases in Nairobi, Kenya., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of ALWH (10-19 years old). Participants underwent chest CT, spirometry, and venipuncture for serum biomarkers. We also collected demographic, anthropometric, T-cell subset, antiretroviral therapy, and exposure data. We compared characteristics and biomarkers by airflow obstruction [postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC z-score (zFEV1/FVC) < -1.64]. We used multivariable linear regression to determine associations of log10-transformed biomarkers and chest CT abnormalities with lower postbronchodilator zFEV1/FVC (airflow limitation). We performed exploratory principal components analysis on biomarkers, and determined associations of factors with postbronchodilator zFEV1/FVC and chest CT abnormalities., Results: Of 47 participants with acceptable quality spirometry, 21 (45%) were female, median age was 13 years and 96% had perinatally-acquired HIV. Median CD4 was 672 cells/µL. Overall, 28% had airflow obstruction and 78% had a chest CT abnormality; airflow obstruction was associated with mosaic attenuation (P = 0.001). Higher endothelial activation (sVCAM-1, sICAM-1), inflammation and innate immune activation (serum amyloid-A, sTREM-1, sCD163), and T-cell imbalance (lower CD4/CD8) markers were associated with airflow limitation. Factors comprising endothelial and innate immune activation were associated with airflow limitation., Conclusions: Endothelial activation, innate immune activation, T-cell imbalance, and chronic inflammation are associated with airflow limitation and obstruction, providing insights into chronic lung disease pathophysiology among ALWH.

Our current knowledge of idiopathic pneumonia syndrome (IPS) predates improved specificity in the diagnosis of IPS and advances in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and critical care practices. In this study, we describe and update the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of IPS. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all adults who underwent allogeneic HCT at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center between 2006 and 2013 (n = 1829). IPS was defined using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consensus definition: multilobar airspace opacities on chest imaging, absence of lower respiratory tract infection, and hypoxemia. We described IPS incidence and mortality within 120 and 365 days after HCT. We examined conditioning intensity (nonmyeloablative versus myeloablative with high-dose total body irradiation [TBI] versus myeloablative with low-dose TBI) as an IPS risk factor in a time-to-event analysis using Cox models, controlled for age at transplant, HLA matching, stem cell source, and pretransplant Lung function Score (a combined measure of impairment in Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second (FEV 1 ) and Diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO)). Among 1829 HCT recipients, 67 fulfilled IPS criteria within 120 days (3.7%). Individuals who developed IPS were more likely to be black/non-Hispanic versus other racial groups and have severe pulmonary impairment but were otherwise similar to participants without IPS. In adjusted models, myeloablative conditioning with high-dose TBI was associated with increased risk of IPS (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 5.2). Thirty-one patients (46.3%) with IPS died within the first 120 days of HCT and 47 patients (70.1%) died within 365 days of HCT. In contrast, among the 1762 patients who did not acquire IPS in the first 120 days, 204 (11.6%) died within 120 days of HCT and 510 (29.9%) died within 365 days of HCT. Our findings suggest that although the incidence of IPS may be declining, it remains associated with post-transplant mortality. Future study should focus on early detection and identifying pathologic mediators of IPS to facilitate timely, targeted therapies for those most susceptible to lung injury post-HCT., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Lung cancer screening with low-dose chest computed tomography decreases mortality for high-risk current or former smokers. Lifetime smoking intensity (cigarette pack-years), an essential eligibility criterion, is poorly recorded in electronic health records, which may contribute to the overall low appropriate use of screening. Objectives: We sought to assess whether elements commonly extractable from electronic health records may be useful as prescreening tools to identify individuals for formal assessment of eligibility. Methods: This was a cross-sectional cohort study of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) continuous survey, years 2011-2016. We included all adult participants with complete smoking interview data, weighted to construct a nationally representative cohort. We determined test characteristics for five criteria, including eligibility age, smoking status (current, former, or never), and current smoking intensity, to predict lung cancer screening eligibility as defined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Results: Almost 9 million individuals (3.8% of the population) may qualify for screening. Simplified criteria, including the appropriate age range (55-77 yr) and smoking status, correctly discriminated individuals who were eligible for screening in most cases (area under the curve = 0.92). When the analysis was restricted to those of eligible age, smoking status retained fair predictive value (area under the curve = 0.85). Incorporating additional information about current smoking behavior would allow for refinement of approaches to identify specific populations for screening. Conclusions: These simplified criteria may be useful for identifying individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening. Applying these criteria as a prescreening tool may improve appropriate referral and implementation of screening. Keywords: lung cancer; early detection of lung cancer; cancer prevention; tobacco abuse.

Lung transplant recipients have an increased risk of lung cancer that is poorly understood. Prior studies are largely descriptive and single-center, and have not examined risk factors or outcomes in this population. This registry-linkage study utilized matched transplant and cancer registry data from 17 US states/regions during 1987-2012. We used standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare incidence with the general population, Poisson models to identify lung cancer risk factors, and Cox models to compare survival after diagnosis. Lung cancer risk was increased among lung recipients (SIR 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-5.5). Those with single lung transplant had 13-fold (95% CI 11-15) increased risk in the native lung. Native lung cancer risk factors included age, prior smoking, time since transplant, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Compared with cases in the general population, lung cancers in recipients were more frequently localized stage (P = .02) and treated surgically (P = .05). However, recipients had higher all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90, 95% CI 1.52-2.37) and cancer-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.28-2.18). In conclusion, lung cancer risk is increased after lung transplant, especially in the native lung of single lung recipients. Traditional risk factors are associated with lung cancer in these patients. Lung cancer survival is worse among lung recipients despite earlier diagnosis., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Lung cancer screening with low-dose chest CT has been demonstrated to reduce lung cancer mortality among a subset of high-risk current and former smokers. Despite randomized trial evidence and widespread guideline recommendations, uptake of lung cancer screening among currently eligible individuals remains poor. Recent studies estimate that less than 5% of all eligible individuals have undergone screening. Moreover, inappropriate screening of ineligible individuals seems to be common, and among those who have been screened, follow-up may also be poor. In this review, the authors examine recent studies demonstrating the current state of suboptimal implementation of lung cancer screening. The authors also introduce both patient- and provider-facing evidence-based interventions that may improve implementation of screening. These include tailored navigation interventions to overcome patient barriers throughout the screening care continuum and interventions to improve the identification of eligible individuals for providers. Further evidence on best practices around the implementation of lung cancer screening is essential to ensure that recent evidence can be translated into practice to improve the early detection of lung cancer for high-risk individuals., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. All rights reserved.)