Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening: A Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haddad DN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7175982 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.
| S-EPMC8266751 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7159416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guidelines are based on smoking history and age (55-80 years). These guidelines may miss those at higher risk, even at lower exposures of smoking or younger ages, because of other risk factors such as race, family history, or comorbidity. In this study, we characterized the demographic and clinical profiles of those selected by risk-based screening criteria but were missed by USPSTF guidelines in younger (50-54 years) and older (71-80 years) age groups.MethodsWe used data from the National Health Interview Survey, the CISNET Smoking History Generator, and results of logistic prediction models to simulate lifetime lung cancer risk-factor data for 100 000 individuals in the 1950-1960 birth cohorts. We calculated age-specific 6-year lung cancer risk for each individual from ages 50 to 90 years using the PLCOm2012 model and evaluated age-specific screening eligibility by USPSTF guidelines and by risk-based criteria (varying thresholds between 1.3% and 2.5%).ResultsIn the 1950 birth cohort, 5.4% would have been ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria in their younger ages but eligible based on risk-based criteria. Similarly, 10.4% of the cohort would be ineligible for screening by USPSTF in older ages. Notably, high proportions of blacks were ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria at younger (15.6%) and older (14.2%) ages, which were statistically significantly greater than those of whites (4.8% and 10.8%, respectively; P < .001). Similar results were observed with other risk thresholds and for the 1960 cohort.ConclusionsFurther consideration is needed to incorporate comprehensive risk factors, including race and ethnicity, into lung cancer screening to reduce potential racial disparities.
| S-EPMC7669226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveLow dose computed tomography (LDCT) became the standard method for lung cancer (LC) screening in 2013. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in survival rates based on sex and whether the differences depend on screening status. We aimed to evaluate the LC survival rates between females and males based on screening.Material and methodsThis retrospective cohort study examined data from the Boston LC Study (BLCS) between 2013 and 2021. LC screening depends on patients' demographics (age and smoking history) to determine whether a person is a high-risk individual and, therefore, undergo LDCT. Descriptive statistics were calculated for race, age, histology, smoking history, stage, and treatment. These variables' distributions were compared between sex and screening status using t-test and chi-square, respectively. Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare survival between sex and screening. Propensity score matching was applied to account for selection bias in screening when evaluating the association between screening and stage.ResultsA total of 1,216 LC patients were identified with a screening incidence of 9.4 %, among whom 56 % were female. Unscreened males had 1.59 times higher risk of mortality than unscreened females (P=.0002) and had a worse 5-year survival (male 50 %; 95 %CI, 0.38,0.6 vs female 70 %; 95 %CI,0.62,0.76). In contrast, there were no significant differences in survival between sexes among screened. In a balanced cohort of screened and unscreened, the odds of being diagnosed at late stages for females and smokers were 1.33 and 2.51 times that of males and nonsmokers; however, there were no statistical significance.ConclusionUnscreened females had a lower risk of mortality and better survival than unscreened males, while among the screened population, there was no difference in the overall survival. These observations demonstrate the influence of sex on survival prognosis in LC when screening is not performed.
| S-EPMC9618021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCriteria for low-dose CT scan lung cancer screening vary across guidelines. Knowledge of the eligible pool across demographic groups can enable policy and programmatic decision-making, particularly for disproportionately affected populations.Research questionWhat are the eligibility rates for low-dose CT scan screening according to sex and race or ethnicity and how do these rates relate to corresponding lung cancer incidence rates?Study design and methodsThis was a cross-sectional study using data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey adult and cancer control supplement files. In addition to eligibility rates, the ratio of the eligibility rate to the lung cancer incidence rate in a given population group (eligibility to incidence [E-I] ratio) also was determined. Guidelines assessed were: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and US Preventive Services Task Force current or with expansion of age and smoking or quit thresholds. We also assessed a risk model (PLCOM2012 risk model).ResultsTotal numbers eligible based on current guidelines ranged from 8.3 to 13.3 million, representing 8.3% to 13.4% of the US population 50 to 80 years of age, and up to 17.5 million with expanded criteria. Overall eligibility rates on average were about 10 percentage points higher for men than women. For both men and women, and both overall and among ever smokers, non-Hispanic Whites had the highest eligibility rates across all guidelines, followed generally by non-Hispanic Blacks, and then Asians and Hispanics. Among both men and women, non-Hispanic Whites had the highest E-I ratios across all guidelines; non-Hispanic Black men had higher lung cancer incidence, but 30% to 50% lower E-I ratios, than non-Hispanic White men.InterpretationScreening eligibility rates vary widely across guidelines, with disparities evident in E-I ratios, including among non-Hispanic Black men, despite higher lung cancer burden. Consideration of smoking duration in risk assessment criteria may address current disparities.
| S-EPMC8411441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its recommendation to expand lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility and mitigate disparities. Although this increased the number of non-White individuals who are eligible for LCS, the update's impact on drivers of disparities is less clear. This analysis focuses on racial disparities among Black individuals because members of this group disproportionately share late-stage lung cancer diagnoses, despite typically having a lower intensity smoking history compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.MethodsWe used data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine the impact of the 2021 eligibility criteria on racial disparities by factors such as education, poverty, employment history, and insurance status. We also examined preventive care use and reasons for delaying medical care.ResultsWhen comparing Black individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals, our analyses show significant differences in who would be eligible for LCS: Those who do not have a high school diploma (28.7% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.002), are in poverty (26.2% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001), and have not worked in the past 12 months (66.5% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.009). Further, our analyses also show that more Black individuals delayed medical care due to not having transportation (11.1% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.ConclusionsOur results suggest that despite increasing the number of Black individuals who are eligible for LCS, the 2021 USPSTF recommendation highlights ongoing socioeconomic disparities that need to be addressed to ensure equitable access.
| S-EPMC9972155 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7528802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople with HIV (PWHIV) have improved survival because of the advent of antiretroviral therapy. Consequently, PWHIV experience higher rates of non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining malignancies (NADMs). Previous studies have demonstrated worsened cancer-specific survival in PWHIV, partly because of advanced cancer stage at diagnosis. The objective of the current systematic review was to evaluate screening disparities for NADMs among PWHIV.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from January 1, 1996 through April 10, 2018 to identify studies related to screening disparities for NADMs among PWHIV. Eligibility criteria included any study performed in a high-income country that compared screening for NADMs by HIV status. After title/abstract screening and full-text review, articles that met eligibility criteria were analyzed.ResultsOf 613 unique articles identified through the search, 9 studies were analyzed. Three studies addressed breast cancer screening, 4 addressed colorectal cancer screening, and 2 addressed prostate cancer screening. Five of the reviewed studies demonstrated that PWHIV were less likely to receive indicated cancer screenings compared with the general population, whereas 3 indicated that screening proportions were higher among PWHIV, and 1 demonstrated that screening proportions were comparable. In most of the studies, PWHIV who had regular access to health care were more likely to undergo cancer screening.ConclusionsThe available evidence does not uniformly confirm that PWHIV are less likely to receive cancer screening. Social determinants of health (insurance status, access to health care, education, income level) were associated with the receipt of appropriate cancer screening, suggesting that these barriers need to be addressed to improve cancer screening in PWHIV.
| S-EPMC6488220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patterns of age disparities in cancer survival, using colon and lung cancer as exemplars.DesignSystematic review of the literature.Data sourcesWe searched Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science through 18 December 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe retained all original articles published in English including patients with colon or lung cancer. Eligible studies were required to be population-based, report survival across several age groups (of which at least one was over the age of 65) and at least one other characteristic (eg, sex, treatment).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies against selected evaluation domains from the QUIPS tool, and items concerning statistical reporting. We evaluated age disparities using the absolute difference in survival or mortality rates between the middle-aged group and the oldest age group, or by describing survival curves.ResultsOut of 3047 references, we retained 59 studies (20 for colon, 34 for lung and 5 for both sites). Regardless of the cancer site, the included studies were highly heterogeneous and often of poor quality. The magnitude of age disparities in survival varied greatly by sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, stage at diagnosis, cancer site, and morphology, the number of nodes examined and treatment strategy. Although results were inconsistent for most characteristics, we consistently observed greater age disparities for women with lung cancer compared with men. Also, age disparities increased with more advanced stages for colon cancer and decreased with more advanced stages for lung cancer.ConclusionsAlthough age is one of the most important prognostic factors in cancer survival, age disparities in colon and lung cancer survival have so far been understudied in population-based research. Further studies are needed to better understand age disparities in colon and lung cancer survival.Prospero registration numberCRD42020151402.
| S-EPMC7949400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to identify whether cancer-related health behaviours including participation in cancer screening vary by geographic location in Australia. Data were obtained from the 2014-2015 Australian National Health Survey, a computer-assisted telephone interview that measured a range of health-related issues in a sample of randomly selected households. Chi-square tests and adjusted odds ratios from logistic regression models were computed to assess the association between residential location and cancer-related health behaviours including cancer screening participation, alcohol consumption, smoking, exercise, and fruit and vegetable intake, controlling for age, socio-economic status (SES), education, and place of birth. The findings show insufficient exercise, risky alcohol intake, meeting vegetable intake guidelines, and participation in cervical screening are more likely for those living in inner regional areas and in outer regional/remote areas compared with those living in major cities. Daily smoking and participation in prostate cancer screening were significantly higher for those living in outer regional/remote areas. While participation in cancer screening in Australia does not appear to be negatively impacted by regional or remote living, lifestyle behaviours associated with cancer incidence and mortality are poorer in regional and remote areas. Population-based interventions targeting health behaviour change may be an appropriate target for reducing geographical disparities in cancer outcomes.
| S-EPMC7068477 | biostudies-literature