Whitney E Zahnd1, Jan M Eberth2. 1. Rural and Minority Health Research Center, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Department of Health Services Policy and Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 2. Rural and Minority Health Research Center, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Electronic address: jmeberth@mailbox.sc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. The National Lung Screening Trial found that low-dose computed tomography reduced lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals. As a result, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force began recommending low-dose computed tomography screening for those at a high risk in 2013. Therefore, it is imperative to continually monitor lung cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to determine computed tomography screening uptake across ten states using 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data. METHODS: In fall 2018, a cross-sectional analysis was performed on survey data from 4,374 low-dose computed tomography-eligible participants, as determined by Task Force recommendations. Weighted percentages were calculated to assess computed tomography screening utilization overall and by state, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics; Wald chi-squared tests evaluated group differences. RESULTS: Within the study sample, 14.4% of eligible individuals had a computed tomography scan to test for lung cancer within the past 12 months. Significant state-to-state variation was identified (6.5% utilization in Nevada to 18.1% in Florida, p=0.03). Screening utilization was higher among individuals with insurance than among the uninsured (15.2% vs 4.0%, p<0.001), and it was higher among individuals with asthma (22.9% vs 12.9%, p=0.006) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (23.7% vs 8.5%, p<0.001) than among those without either condition. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography screening utilization was higher than in earlier estimates. However, further research is needed to elucidate geographic variation in screening.
INTRODUCTION:Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. The National Lung Screening Trial found that low-dose computed tomography reduced lung cancermortality in high-risk individuals. As a result, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force began recommending low-dose computed tomography screening for those at a high risk in 2013. Therefore, it is imperative to continually monitor lung cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to determine computed tomography screening uptake across ten states using 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data. METHODS: In fall 2018, a cross-sectional analysis was performed on survey data from 4,374 low-dose computed tomography-eligible participants, as determined by Task Force recommendations. Weighted percentages were calculated to assess computed tomography screening utilization overall and by state, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics; Wald chi-squared tests evaluated group differences. RESULTS: Within the study sample, 14.4% of eligible individuals had a computed tomography scan to test for lung cancer within the past 12 months. Significant state-to-state variation was identified (6.5% utilization in Nevada to 18.1% in Florida, p=0.03). Screening utilization was higher among individuals with insurance than among the uninsured (15.2% vs 4.0%, p<0.001), and it was higher among individuals with asthma (22.9% vs 12.9%, p=0.006) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (23.7% vs 8.5%, p<0.001) than among those without either condition. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography screening utilization was higher than in earlier estimates. However, further research is needed to elucidate geographic variation in screening.
Authors: Rebecca L Curran; Polina V Kukhareva; Teresa Taft; Charlene R Weir; Thomas J Reese; Claude Nanjo; Salvador Rodriguez-Loya; Douglas K Martin; Phillip B Warner; David E Shields; Michael C Flynn; Jonathan P Boltax; Kensaku Kawamoto Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Whitney E Zahnd; Natoshia Askelson; Robin C Vanderpool; Lindsay Stradtman; Jean Edward; Paige E Farris; Victoria Petermann; Jan M Eberth Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Pianpian Cao; Jihyoun Jeon; David T Levy; Jinani C Jayasekera; Christopher J Cadham; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathryn L Taylor; Rafael Meza Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2020-03-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Anne Marie Lennon; Adam H Buchanan; Isaac Kinde; Andrew Warren; Ashley Honushefsky; Ariella T Cohain; David H Ledbetter; Fred Sanfilippo; Kathleen Sheridan; Dillenia Rosica; Christian S Adonizio; Hee Jung Hwang; Kamel Lahouel; Joshua D Cohen; Christopher Douville; Aalpen A Patel; Leonardo N Hagmann; David D Rolston; Nirav Malani; Shibin Zhou; Chetan Bettegowda; David L Diehl; Bobbi Urban; Christopher D Still; Lisa Kann; Julie I Woods; Zachary M Salvati; Joseph Vadakara; Rosemary Leeming; Prianka Bhattacharya; Carroll Walter; Alex Parker; Christoph Lengauer; Alison Klein; Cristian Tomasetti; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos Journal: Science Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Randi M Williams; Kenneth H Beck; James Butler; Sunmin Lee; Min Qi Wang; Kathryn L Taylor; Cheryl L Knott Journal: Ethn Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 2.772