Minal S Kale1, Juan Wisnivesky2, Emanuela Taioli3, Bian Liu4. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 3. Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 4. Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. Electronic address: bian.liu@mountsinai.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low adoption of lung cancer screening is potentially caused by inadequate access to a comprehensive lung cancer screening registry (LCSR), currently a requirement for reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, variations in LCSR facilities have not been extensively studied. METHODS: We applied a hierarchical clustering method to a comprehensive database integrating state-level LCSR facility density, defined as the number of facilities per 100,000 at-risk persons, lung cancer outcomes including mortality and stage-specific incidence, and socioeconomic and behavioral factors. RESULTS: We found three distinct clusters of LCSR facilities roughly corresponding to the northern (cluster 1), southeastern (cluster 2), and southwestern (cluster 3) states. The southeastern states had the lowest total number of facilities (67 ± 44 in cluster 2, 74 ± 69 in cluster 1, 80 ± 100 in cluster 3), the slowest increase in facilities (23 ± 20 in cluster 2, 26 ± 28 in cluster 1, 27 ± 32 in cluster 3) between 2016 and 2018, and the highest lung cancer burden and current smokers. They ranked second in terms of facility density (2.9 ± 1.0 in cluster 3, 3.8 ± 1.3 in cluster 2, 6.3 ± 2.8 in cluster 1) and increase in facility density (1.1 ± 0.3 in cluster 3, 1.3 ± 0.7 in cluster 2, 2.5 ± 2.5 in cluster 1). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial state-level variability in LCSR facilities tied to lung cancer burden, socioeconomic characteristics, and behavioral characteristics. Given the known risk factors of lung cancer, correcting a suboptimal distribution of screening programs will likely lead to improved lung cancer outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Low adoption of lung cancer screening is potentially caused by inadequate access to a comprehensive lung cancer screening registry (LCSR), currently a requirement for reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, variations in LCSR facilities have not been extensively studied. METHODS: We applied a hierarchical clustering method to a comprehensive database integrating state-level LCSR facility density, defined as the number of facilities per 100,000 at-risk persons, lung cancer outcomes including mortality and stage-specific incidence, and socioeconomic and behavioral factors. RESULTS: We found three distinct clusters of LCSR facilities roughly corresponding to the northern (cluster 1), southeastern (cluster 2), and southwestern (cluster 3) states. The southeastern states had the lowest total number of facilities (67 ± 44 in cluster 2, 74 ± 69 in cluster 1, 80 ± 100 in cluster 3), the slowest increase in facilities (23 ± 20 in cluster 2, 26 ± 28 in cluster 1, 27 ± 32 in cluster 3) between 2016 and 2018, and the highest lung cancer burden and current smokers. They ranked second in terms of facility density (2.9 ± 1.0 in cluster 3, 3.8 ± 1.3 in cluster 2, 6.3 ± 2.8 in cluster 1) and increase in facility density (1.1 ± 0.3 in cluster 3, 1.3 ± 0.7 in cluster 2, 2.5 ± 2.5 in cluster 1). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial state-level variability in LCSR facilities tied to lung cancer burden, socioeconomic characteristics, and behavioral characteristics. Given the known risk factors of lung cancer, correcting a suboptimal distribution of screening programs will likely lead to improved lung cancer outcomes.
Authors: Jennifer L Ersek; Jan M Eberth; Karen Kane McDonnell; Scott M Strayer; Erica Sercy; Kathleen B Cartmell; Daniela B Friedman Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mario Schootman; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Kevin A Henry; Electra D Paskett; Gary L Ellison; April Oh; Stephen H Taplin; Zaria Tatalovich; David A Berrigan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Douglas B Richardson; Nora D Volkow; Mei-Po Kwan; Robert M Kaplan; Michael F Goodchild; Robert T Croyle Journal: Science Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Clement Kudzai Gwede; Beverly G Ward; John S Luque; Susan T Vadaparampil; Desiree Rivers; Dinorah Martinez-Tyson; Shalewa Noel-Thomas; Cathy D Meade Journal: Online J Public Health Inform Date: 2010-04-09
Authors: Zaria Tatalovich; Li Zhu; Alicia Rolin; Denise R Lewis; Linda C Harlan; Deborah M Winn Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 3.918
Authors: Soumya J Niranjan; William Opoku-Agyeman; Nathaniel W Carroll; Amanda Dorsey; Meghan Tipre; Monica L Baskin; Mark T Dransfield Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-09
Authors: Jacqueline H Boudreau; Donald R Miller; Shirley Qian; Eduardo R Nunez; Tanner J Caverly; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: Bian Liu; Jeremy Sze; Lihua Li; Katherine A Ornstein; Emanuela Taioli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: M Patricia Rivera; Hormuzd A Katki; Nichole T Tanner; Matthew Triplette; Lori C Sakoda; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Roberto Cardarelli; Lisa Carter-Harris; Kristina Crothers; Joelle T Fathi; Marvella E Ford; Robert Smith; Robert A Winn; Juan P Wisnivesky; Louise M Henderson; Melinda C Aldrich Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405