Extent of implementation of low-dose CT in lung cancer screening.

Abstract

e19177 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States with only 15% alive 5 years after diagnosis. In 2013, USPSTF recommended annual screening for LDCT in high risk individuals. Studies had shown a 20% lower mortality (NELSON trial showed significantly lower lung cancer mortality) with LDCT screening. We aimed to assess the extent to which the guideline for lung cancer screening is being adopted in a community clinic. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical record of patients aged 55-80 years with no history of lung cancer who visited a primary care provider in a community clinic in New Jersey from October 2014- December 2019 was done. All records with any form of documentation of smoking were identified electronically. The records of those meeting the criteria (30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years) were reviewed manually to check 1) whether they are eligible for screening, 2) if eligible whether low dose CT has been recommended by the provider and 3) once recommended has it been done and followed by the patients. Results: 359 individuals with documented smoking history were identified. Of those 38.8 % (139/359) had a proper documentation (includes both PPD and number of years of smoking) of smoking history based on which high risk individuals could be identified. Of those 37 individuals met the criteria for lung cancer screening. 62% (23/37) had CT chest ordered at some point of time (16.2% for a different indication and the rest for lung cancer screening). Only 52.2% (12/23) of the patients followed the recommendations and got a LDCT done. Among those 50% (6/12) had follow up CT, 50 % (3/6) of those did it on a regular annual basis while the rest 50% (3/6) did it irregularly. 3 patients followed the annual CT screening for lung cancer. Conclusions: Based on these we note that almost half a decade since the recommendation has been established only a small proportion received the care and a still smaller minority followed it. It reflects the dearth of information regarding the guideline among providers and the lack of awareness of the need to follow among patients. This puts forward need for further interventions for implementation of the guidelines at all levels of care for lung cancer prevention. Measures include analyzing the areas of deficiency through questionnaires for patients and providers. Creating awareness on the need for accurate documentation of smoking history and the impact it can have on care delivered. Educating patients about the benefits in health outcome by following the recommendations.