Abstract

For lung cancer screening to confer mortality benefit, adherence to annual screening with low-dose computed tomography scans is essential. Although the National Lung Screening Trial had an adherence rate of 95%, current data are limited on screening adherence across diverse practice settings in the United States. To evaluate patterns and factors associated with adherence to annual screening for lung cancer after negative results of a baseline examination, particularly in centralized vs decentralized screening programs. This observational cohort study was conducted at 5 academic and community-based sites in North Carolina and California among 2283 individuals screened for lung cancer between July 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, who met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria, had negative results of a baseline screening examination (American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 1 or 2), and were eligible to return for a screening examination in 12 months. To identify factors associated with adherence, the association of adherence with selected baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of screening program, was estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Screening program type was classified as centralized if individuals were referred through a lung cancer screening clinic or program and as decentralized if individuals had a direct clinician referral for the baseline low-dose computed tomography scan. Adherence to annual lung cancer screening, defined as a second low-dose computed tomography scan within 11 to 15 months after baseline screening. Among the 2283 eligible individuals (1294 men [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [5.8] years; 1160 [50.8%] aged ≥65 years) who had negative screening results at baseline, overall adherence was 40.2% (n = 917), with higher adherence among those who underwent screening through centralized (46.0% [478 of 1039]) vs decentralized (35.3% [439 of 1244]) programs. The independent factor most strongly associated with adherence was type of screening program, with a 2.8-fold increased likelihood of adherence associated with centralized screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.78; 95% CI, 1.99-3.88). Another associated factor was age (65-69 vs 55-59 years: aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77; 70-74 vs 55-59 years: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.10-1.96). After negative results of a baseline examination, adherence to annual lung cancer screening was suboptimal, although adherence was higher among individuals who were screened through a centralized program. These results support the value of centralized screening programs and the need to further implement strategies that improve adherence to annual screening for lung cancer.

Highlights

  • Landmark results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) support recommendations for lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in the United States.[1,2,3] The NLST demonstrated that annual screening of high-risk adults with LDCT led to a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality.[4]

  • The independent factor most strongly associated with adherence was type of screening program, with a 2.8-fold increased likelihood of adherence associated with centralized screening

  • After negative results of a baseline examination, adherence to annual lung cancer screening was suboptimal, adherence was higher among individuals who were screened through a centralized program

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Landmark results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) support recommendations for lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in the United States.[1,2,3] The NLST demonstrated that annual screening of high-risk adults with LDCT (vs chest radiography) led to a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality.[4]. Adherence below that observed in these trials may decrease the benefit to harm ratio of LCS, and current USPSTF recommendations are based on modeling studies that estimated the mortality benefit associated with various LDCT screening scenarios assuming 100% adherence.[11] In practice, reported adherence has been variable and lower than 100%, ranging from 18% to 86%.12-18. This variation is likely explained by differences in institutional practices around the implementation of LCS programs, the populations screened, and the applied definition of screening adherence. Data on adherence remain limited, especially in community practice settings, yet they are fundamental in guiding interventions and policy decisions to optimize LCS effectiveness

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call