Dataset Information

Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Current 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. METHODS:We 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%). RESULTS:In 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?

SUBMITTER: Han SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7669226 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.

Han Summer S SS Chow Eric E Ten Haaf Kevin K Toumazis Iakovos I Cao Pianpian P Bastani Mehrad M Tammemagi Martin M Jeon Jihyoun J Feuer Eric J EJ Meza Rafael R Plevritis Sylvia K SK

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20201101 11

<h4>Background</h4>Current 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 ...[more]

PMID: 32040195

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportanceThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. However, USPSTF screening guidelines were derived from a study population including only 4% African American smokers, and racial differences in smoking patterns were not considered.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of USPSTF lung cancer screening eligibility criteria in a predominantly African American and low-income cohort.Design, setting, and participantsThe Southern Community Cohort Study prospectively enrolled adults visiting community health centers across 12 southern US states from March 25, 2002, through September 24, 2009, and followed up for cancer incidence through December 31, 2014. Participants included African American and white current and former smokers aged 40 through 79 years. Statistical analysis was performed from May 11, 2016, to December 6, 2018.ExposuresSelf-reported race, age, and smoking history. Cumulative exposure smoking histories encompassed most recent follow-up questionnaires.Main outcomes and measuresIncident lung cancer cases assessed for eligibility for lung cancer screening using USPSTF criteria.ResultsAmong 48 364 ever smokers, 32 463 (67%) were African American and 15 901 (33%) were white, with 1269 incident lung cancers identified. Among all 48 364 Southern Community Cohort Study participants, 5654 of 32 463 African American smokers (17%) were eligible for USPSTF screening compared with 4992 of 15 901 white smokers (31%) (P < .001). Among persons diagnosed with lung cancer, a significantly lower percentage of African American smokers (255 of 791; 32%) was eligible for screening compared with white smokers (270 of 478; 56%) (P < .001). The lower percentage of eligible lung cancer cases in African American smokers was primarily associated with fewer smoking pack-years among African American vs white smokers (median pack-years: 25.8 [interquartile range, 16.9-42.0] vs 48.0 [interquartile range, 30.2-70.5]; P < .001). Racial disparity was observed in the sensitivity and specificity of USPSTF guidelines between African American and white smokers for all ages. Lowering the smoking pack-year eligibility criteria to a minimum 20-pack-year history was associated with an increased percentage of screening eligibility of African American smokers and with equitable performance of sensitivity and specificity compared with white smokers across all ages (for a 55-year-old current African American smoker, sensitivity increased from 32.2% to 49.0% vs 56.5% for a 55-year-old white current smoker; specificity decreased from 83.0% to 71.6% vs 69.4%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceCurrent USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines may be too conservative for African American smokers. The findings suggest that race-specific adjustment of pack-year criteria in lung cancer screening guidelines would result in more equitable screening for African American smokers at high risk for lung cancer.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association of sociodemographic and hospital characteristics with adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer and to analyze the relationship between adherent care and survival. METHODS:This is a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with stage IB-IIA invasive cervical cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2009. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care was defined by year- and stage-appropriate surgical procedures, radiation, and chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier estimate, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline adherence and cervical cancer-specific 5-year survival. RESULTS:A total of 6,063 patients were identified. Forty-seven percent received National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-adherent care, and 18.8% were treated in high-volume centers (20 or more patients/year). On multivariate analysis, lowest socioeconomic status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.84), low-middle socioeconomic status (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.92), and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score 1 or higher (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) were patient characteristics associated with receipt of nonguideline care. Receiving adherent care was less common in low-volume centers (45.9%) than in high-volume centers (50.9%) (effect size 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.96). Death from cervical cancer was more common in the nonadherent group (13.3%) than in the adherent group (8.6%) (effect size 1.55, 95% CI 1.34-1.80). Black race (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.08-2.27), Medicaid payer status (adjusted hazard ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.15-1.87), and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score 1 or higher (adjusted hazard ratio 2.07, 95% CI 1.68-2.56) were all associated with increased risk of dying from cervical cancer. CONCLUSION:Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-nonadherent care was independently associated with increased cervical cancer-specific mortality along with black race and Medicaid payer status. Nonadherence was more prevalent in patients with older age, lower socioeconomic status, and receipt of care in low-volume centers. Attention should be paid to increase guideline adherence.

Project description:BackgroundThe NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) showed reduced lung cancer mortality in high-risk participants (smoking history of ≥30 pack-years) aged 55 to 74 years who were randomly assigned to screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus those assigned to chest radiography. An advisory panel recently expressed reservations about Medicare coverage of LDCT screening because of concerns about performance in the Medicare-aged population, which accounted for only 25% of the NLST participants.ObjectiveTo examine the results of the NLST LDCT group by age (Medicare-eligible vs. <65 years).DesignSecondary analysis of a group from a randomized trial (NCT00047385).Setting33 U.S. screening centers.Patients19 612 participants aged 55 to 64 years (under-65 cohort) and 7110 participants aged 65 to 74 years (65+ cohort) at randomization.Intervention3 annual rounds of LDCT screening.MeasurementsDemographics, smoking and medical history, screening examination adherence and results, diagnostic follow-up procedures and complications, lung cancer diagnoses, treatment, survival, and mortality.ResultsThe aggregate false-positive rate was higher in the 65+ cohort than in the under-65 cohort (27.7% vs. 22.0%; P < 0.001). Invasive diagnostic procedures after false-positive screening results were modestly more frequent in the older cohort (3.3% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.039). Complications from invasive procedures were low in both groups (9.8% in the under-65 cohort vs. 8.5% in the 65+ cohort). Prevalence and positive predictive value (PPV) were higher in the 65+ cohort (PPV, 4.9% vs. 3.0%). Resection rates for screen-detected cancer were similar (75.6% in the under-65 cohort vs. 73.2% in the 65+ cohort). Five-year all-cause survival was lower in the 65+ cohort (55.1% vs. 64.1%; P = 0.018).LimitationThe oldest screened patient was aged 76 years.ConclusionNLST participants aged 65 years or older had a higher rate of false-positive screening results than those younger than 65 years but a higher cancer prevalence and PPV. Screen-detected cancer was treated similarly in the groups.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.

Publications

Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets