Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. OBJECTIVE To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR). DESIGN Cohort study. SETTING United States, 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR. MEASUREMENTS Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT. RESULTS Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively. LIMITATIONS Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up. CONCLUSION Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE None.

[1]  Alireza Heidari,et al.  Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) , 2021, Journal of Chemistry and Applications.

[2]  M. Cabana,et al.  Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. , 2021, JAMA.

[3]  C. Berg,et al.  Using Prediction-Models to Reduce Persistent Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Draft 2020 USPSTF Lung-Cancer Screening Guidelines. , 2021, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  R. Volk,et al.  Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US , 2020, JAMA network open.

[5]  N. Tanner,et al.  Screening Adherence in the Veterans Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. , 2020, Chest.

[6]  Harry J de Koning,et al.  Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  H. Katki,et al.  Basing eligibility for lung cancer screening on individualized risk calculators should save more lives, but life-expectancy matters. , 2019, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  L. Tanoue,et al.  Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement , 2018, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[9]  P. Mazzone,et al.  Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report , 2018, Chest.

[10]  N. Tanner,et al.  Assessing the Generalizability of the National Lung Screening Trial: Comparison of Patients with Stage 1 Disease , 2017, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[11]  Summer S. Han,et al.  Evaluating the impact of varied compliance to lung cancer screening recommendations using a microsimulation model , 2017, Cancer Causes & Control.

[12]  Arash Naeim,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  V. Moyer Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  C. Berg,et al.  Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  V. Vaidya,et al.  Gender differences in utilization of preventive care services in the United States. , 2012, Journal of women's health.

[16]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening , 2012 .

[17]  Howard K Koh,et al.  Promoting prevention through the Affordable Care Act. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  A Donner,et al.  Construction of confidence limits about effect measures: A general approach , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  M. Roizen Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening , 2012 .