Dataset Information

State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.

Methods

The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.

Results

Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).

Conclusions

Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.

SUBMITTER: Fedewa SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8328984 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceScreening for lung cancer has the potential to reduce mortality, but in addition to detecting aggressive tumors, screening will also detect indolent tumors that otherwise may not cause clinical symptoms. These overdiagnosis cases represent an important potential harm of screening because they incur additional cost, anxiety, and morbidity associated with cancer treatment.ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).Design, setting, and participantsWe used data from the NLST, a randomized trial comparing screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) vs chest radiography (CXR) among 53 452 persons at high risk for lung cancer observed for 6.4 years, to estimate the excess number of lung cancers in the LDCT arm of the NLST compared with the CXR arm.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated 2 measures of overdiagnosis: the probability that a lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT is an overdiagnosis (PS), defined as the excess lung cancers detected by LDCT divided by all lung cancers detected by screening in the LDCT arm; and the number of cases that were considered overdiagnosis relative to the number of persons needed to screen to prevent 1 death from lung cancer.ResultsDuring follow-up, 1089 lung cancers were reported in the LDCT arm and 969 in the CXR arm of the NLST. The probability is 18.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-30.6%) that any lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT was an overdiagnosis, 22.5% (95% CI, 9.7%-34.3%) that a non-small cell lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis, and 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2%-93.5%) that a bronchioalveolar lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis. The number of cases of overdiagnosis found among the 320 participants who would need to be screened in the NLST to prevent 1 death from lung cancer was 1.38.Conclusions and relevanceMore than 18% of all lung cancers detected by LDCT in the NLST seem to be indolent, and overdiagnosis should be considered when describing the risks of LDCT screening for lung cancer.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the recommendations of lung cancer screening guidelines and the evidence supporting the effectiveness of population-based lung screening, a common barrier to effective lung cancer screening is that the participation rates of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening among individuals with the highest risk are not large. There are limited data from clinical practice regarding whether opportunistic LDCT screening is associated with reduced lung-cancer mortality.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether opportunistic LDCT screening is associated with improved prognosis among adults with lung cancer in mainland China.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included patients diagnosed with lung cancer at Weihai Municipal Hospital Healthcare Group, Weihai City, China, from 2016 to 2021. Data were analyzed from January 2022 to February 2023.ExposuresData collected included demographic indicators, tumor characteristics, comorbidities, blood indexes, and treatment information. Patients were classified into screened and nonscreened groups on the basis of whether or not their lung cancer diagnosis occurred through opportunistic screening.Main outcomes and measuresFollow-up outcome indicators included lung cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was adopted to account for potential imbalanced factors between groups. The associations between LDCT screening and outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression models based on the matched data. Propensity score regression adjustment and inverse probability treatment weighting were used for sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 5234 patients (mean [SD] baseline age, 61.8 [9.8] years; 2518 [48.1%] female) with complete opportunistic screening information were included in the analytical sample, with 2251 patients (42.91%) receiving their lung cancer diagnosis through opportunistic screening. After 1:1 PSM, 2788 patients (1394 in each group) were finally included. The baseline characteristics of the matched patients were balanced between groups. Opportunistic screening with LDCT was associated with a 49% lower risk of lung cancer death (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.62) and 46% lower risk of all-cause death (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45-0.64).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with lung cancer, opportunistic lung cancer screening with LDCT was associated with lower lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that opportunistic screening is an important supplement to population screening to improve prognosis of adults with lung cancer.

Project description:ImportanceLung cancer screening has been widely implemented in Europe and the US. However, there is little evidence on participation and diagnostic yields in population-based lung cancer screening in China.ObjectiveTo assess the participation rate and detection rate of lung cancer in a population-based screening program and the factors associated with participation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China from October 2013 to October 2019, with follow-up until March 10, 2020. The program is conducted at centers in 8 cities in Henan Province, China. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 74 and were evaluated for a high risk for lung cancer using an established risk score system.Main outcomes and measuresOverall and group-specific participation rates by common factors, such as age, sex, and educational level, were calculated. Differences in participation rates between those groups were compared. The diagnostic yield of both screening and nonscreening groups was calculated.ResultsThe study recruited 282 377 eligible participants and included 55 428 with high risk for lung cancer; the mean (SD) age was 55.3 (8.1) years, and 34 966 participants (63.1%) were men. A total of 22 260 participants underwent LDCT (participation rate, 40.16%; 95% CI, 39.82%-40.50%). The multivariable logistic regression model showed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78), former smoking (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), lack of physical activity (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), family history of lung cancer (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.66-1.79), and 7 other factors were associated with increased participation of LDCT screening. Overall, at 6-year follow-up, 78 participants in the screening group (0.35%; 95% CI, 0.29%-0.42%) and 125 in the nonscreening group (0.38%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.44%) had lung cancer detected, which resulted in an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.70-1.23; P = .61).Conclusions and relevanceThe low participations rate in the program studied suggests that an improved strategy is needed. These findings may provide useful information for designing effective population-based lung cancer screening strategies in the future.