BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) requires complex processes to identify eligible patients, provide appropriate follow-up, and manage findings. It is unclear whether LCS in real-world clinical settings will realize the same benefits as the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of process modifications on compliance with LCS guidelines during LCS program implementation, and to compare patient characteristics and outcomes with those in NLST. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO), a non-profit integrated healthcare system. PATIENTS: A total of 3375 patients who underwent a baseline lung cancer screening low-dose computed tomography (S-LDCT) scan between May 2014 and June 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Among those receiving an S-LDCT, proportion who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria before and after LCS process modifications, differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between KPCO LCS patients and the NLST cohort, and factors associated with a positive screen. RESULTS: After modifying LCS eligibility confirmation processes, patients receiving S-LDCT who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria increased from 45.6 to 92.7% (P < 0.001). Prior to changes, patients were older (68 vs. 67 years; P = 0.001), less likely to be current smokers (51.3% vs. 52.5%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have a ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history (50.0% vs. 95.3%; P < 0.001). Compared with NLST participants, KPCO LCS patients were older (67 vs. 60 years; P < 0.001), more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 48.1%; P < 0.001), and more likely to have pulmonary disease. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, the lung cancer detection rate was higher at KPCO (9.4% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.001) and was positively associated with prior pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: Adherence to LCS guidelines requires eligibility confirmation procedures. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, comorbidity burden and lung cancer detection rates were notably higher than in NLST, suggesting that the study of long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LCS in real-world clinical settings is warranted.
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening (LCS) requires complex processes to identify eligible patients, provide appropriate follow-up, and manage findings. It is unclear whether LCS in real-world clinical settings will realize the same benefits as the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of process modifications on compliance with LCS guidelines during LCS program implementation, and to compare patient characteristics and outcomes with those in NLST. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO), a non-profit integrated healthcare system. PATIENTS: A total of 3375 patients who underwent a baseline lung cancer screening low-dose computed tomography (S-LDCT) scan between May 2014 and June 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Among those receiving an S-LDCT, proportion who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria before and after LCS process modifications, differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between KPCO LCS patients and the NLST cohort, and factors associated with a positive screen. RESULTS: After modifying LCS eligibility confirmation processes, patients receiving S-LDCT who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria increased from 45.6 to 92.7% (P < 0.001). Prior to changes, patients were older (68 vs. 67 years; P = 0.001), less likely to be current smokers (51.3% vs. 52.5%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have a ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history (50.0% vs. 95.3%; P < 0.001). Compared with NLST participants, KPCO LCS patients were older (67 vs. 60 years; P < 0.001), more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 48.1%; P < 0.001), and more likely to have pulmonary disease. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, the lung cancer detection rate was higher at KPCO (9.4% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.001) and was positively associated with prior pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: Adherence to LCS guidelines requires eligibility confirmation procedures. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, comorbidity burden and lung cancer detection rates were notably higher than in NLST, suggesting that the study of long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LCS in real-world clinical settings is warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
National Lung Screening Trial; lung cancer screening implementation
Authors: Yaron B Gesthalter; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Christopher G Slatore; Sue H Yoon; Hilary C Cain; Nichole T Tanner; David H Au; Jack A Clark; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Mary M Pasquinelli; Kevin L Kovitz; Matthew Koshy; Martha G Menchaca; Li Liu; Robert Winn; Lawrence E Feldman Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Linda S Kinsinger; Charles Anderson; Jane Kim; Martha Larson; Stephanie H Chan; Heather A King; Kathryn L Rice; Christopher G Slatore; Nichole T Tanner; Kathleen Pittman; Robert J Monte; Rebecca B McNeil; Janet M Grubber; Michael J Kelley; Dawn Provenzale; Santanu K Datta; Nina S Sperber; Lottie K Barnes; David H Abbott; Kellie J Sims; Richard L Whitley; R Ryanne Wu; George L Jackson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: William C Black; Ilana F Gareen; Samir S Soneji; JoRean D Sicks; Emmett B Keeler; Denise R Aberle; Arash Naeim; Timothy R Church; Gerard A Silvestri; Jeremy Gorelick; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael K Gould; Lori C Sakoda; Debra P Ritzwoller; Michael J Simoff; Christine M Neslund-Dudas; Lawrence H Kushi; Lisa Carter-Harris; Heather Spencer Feigelson; George Minowada; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-12
Authors: Thomas B Lanni; Craig Stevens; Michael Farah; Andrew Boyer; James Davis; Robert Welsh; Daniel Keena; Adil Akhtar; Duane Mezwa Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Timothy R Church; William C Black; Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; David S Gierada; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks; Amanda Jain; Sarah Baum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Teri L Malo; Marjorie Margolis; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Shynah James; Maihan B Vu; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Nikki M Carroll; Stacey A Honda; Caroline Joyce; Nandita Mitra; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Oluwatosin Olaiya; Katharine A Rendle; Mitchell D Schnall; Anil Vachani; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-03
Authors: Dejana Braithwaite; Shama D Karanth; Christopher G Slatore; Dongyu Zhang; Jiang Bian; Rafael Meza; Jihyoun Jeon; Martin Tammemagi; Mattthew Schabath; Meghann Wheeler; Yi Guo; Bruno Hochhegger; Frederic J Kaye; Gerard A Silvestri; Michael K Gould Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Debra P Ritzwoller; Rafael Meza; Nikki M Carroll; Erica Blum-Barnett; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey A Honda; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Katharine A Rendle; Anil Vachani Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-10-01
Authors: Eman M Metwally; M Patricia Rivera; Danielle D Durham; Lindsay Lane; Pasangi Perera; Derek Lamb; Louise M Henderson Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-09-01