Implementation Of Lung Cancer Screening Research Articles

LDCT lung cancer screening implementation in a Veterans Affairs hospital: A quality initiative.

e23238 Background: Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer related deaths worldwide. United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) with Low Dose Computerized Tomography (LDCT) for adults who are current smokers aged 50 to 80 years with at least 20 pack year smoking history or have quit smoking within the past 15 years. Although LCS is a national initiative for Veteran Affairs (VA) Hospitals, there are several barriers in practice. Methods: The LCS program was established with a dedicated coordinator to provide better access to high-quality in-house screening, while reducing the dependance on expensive community care services and referrals. Smoking history in Tobacco Pack Years (TPY) is updated during a Primary Care Physician (PCP) visit, which triggers a clinical reminder in the electronic medical record for LCS. The LCS coordinator would then receive a consult. After shared decision-making with the patient, physician and coordinator, the patients are scheduled for LDCT. If the results are Lung-RADS 1 (negative), 2 or 3 (benign appearing nodules) the patients are notified of the findings and provided with subsequent follow ups. All Lung RADS 4 (suspicious findings) are discussed in the lung tumor board, which includes radiologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, pathologist, cardio-thoracic surgeon, and fellows in training. The committee determines the follow-up scan interval and/or additional investigations. Results: The performance of our LCS Program from June 2022 to January 2024 was reviewed. 5941 patients were assessed for TPY, of those 1127 patients were eligible for LCS scans and 1032 (93.3%) were enrolled into the LCS Program. 951 LDCT scans have been conducted thus far, this includes 598 annual initial screenings, the remaining are follow ups. 57 patients (6.81%) had Lung-RADS 3 findings and are undergoing nodule tracking. 16 patients (1.91%) required diagnostic work-up which includes a PET scan or biopsy. 14 patients (1.67%) have been diagnosed with cancer. Conclusions: Our LDCT Program showed a high acceptance rate of 93.3%, much of which can be attributed to the multiple layers of screening and shared decision-making processes. Patients received three phone calls and a letter as a reminder of their LDCT appointments. Our radiology department has four dedicated slots for LDCT screening each day which allows for further compliance. TPY documentation was identified as a limiting factor in this process. The LCS coordinator verified the TPY history with the patients which helped overcome this shortcoming. Overall a multidisciplinary team approach contributed to the success of our program.

Implementation of High-Quality Lung Cancer Screening: Impact of Centralized vs. Decentralized Processes.

Implementation of High-Quality Lung Cancer Screening: Impact of Centralized vs. Decentralized Processes.

Projected effectiveness of lung cancer screening and concurrent smoking cessation support in the Netherlands

The NELSON trial demonstrated a 24% intention-to-screen reduction in lung cancer mortality from regular screening with low-dose computed tomography. Implementation efforts in Europe are ongoing, but still await country-specific and NELSON-adapted estimates of the benefits and harms of screening. We use the MISCAN-Lung microsimulation model, calibrated to individual-level outcomes from the NELSON trial, to estimate the effectiveness under 100% compliance of biennial lung cancer screening with concomitant smoking cessation support for Dutch cohorts 1942-1961. The model simulates smoking behaviour, lung cancer incidence and the effects of screening and smoking cessation on lung- and other-cause mortality. We find biennial screening with eligibility criteria equal to those of the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN implementation trial to reduce lung cancer mortality by 16.9% among the eligible population, equivalent to 1076 LC deaths prevented per year in the next two decades. Eligible individuals constitute 21.5% of the cohorts studied, and stand to face 61% of the projected lung cancer mortality burden in the absence of screening. 10.3 life-years are gained per prevented LC death, for 14.9 screens per life year gained. Concomitant smoking cessation interventions may increase the expected gains in life years from screening by up to 20%. Policy makers should imminently consider the implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe, paired with effective smoking cessation interventions. Smoking cessation interventions on their own are not estimated to yield a gain in remaining life expectancy of the magnitude offered by even a single CT screen. European UnionHorizon 2020 grant 848294: 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN.

The Smokers Health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) Trial: Study Design and Results of the Baseline Round.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk subjects. Cigarette smoking is linked to up to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Even more so, it is a key risk factor for many other cancers and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated program based on the early detection of smoking-related thoraco-cardiovascular diseases in high-risk subjects, combined with primary prevention. A new multi-component screening design was utilized to strengthen the framework on conventional lung cancer screening programs. We report here the study design and the results from our baseline round, focusing on oncological findings. High-risk subjects were defined as being >55 years of age and active smokers or formers who had quit within 15 years (>30 pack/y). A PLCOm2012 threshold >2% was chosen. Subject outreach was streamlined through media campaign and general practitioners' engagement. Eligible subjects, upon written informed consent, underwent a psychology consultation, blood sample collection, self-evaluation questionnaire, spirometry, and LDCT scan. Blood samples were analyzed for pentraxin-3 protein levels, interleukins, microRNA, and circulating tumor cells. Cardiovascular risk assessment and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring were performed. Direct and indirect costs were analyzed focusing on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained in different scenarios. Personalized screening time-intervals were determined using the "Maisonneuve risk re-calculation model", and a threshold <0.6% was chosen for the biennial round. In total, 3228 subjects were willing to be enrolled. Out of 1654 eligible subjects, 1112 participated. The mean age was 64 years (M/F 62/38%), with a mean PLCOm2012 of 5.6%. Former and active smokers represented 23% and 77% of the subjects, respectively. At least one nodule was identified in 348 subjects. LDCTs showed no clinically significant findings in 762 subjects (69%); thus, they were referred for annual/biennial LDCTs based on the Maisonneuve risk (mean value = 0.44%). Lung nodule active surveillance was indicated for 122 subjects (11%). Forty-four subjects with baseline suspicious nodules underwent a PET-FDG and twenty-seven a CT-guided lung biopsy. Finally, a total of 32 cancers were diagnosed, of which 30 were lung cancers (2.7%) and 2 were extrapulmonary cancers (malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymoma). Finally, 25 subjects underwent lung surgery (2.25%). Importantly, there were zero false positives and two false negatives with CT-guided biopsy, of which the patients were operated on with no stage shift. The final pathology included lung adenocarcinomas (69%), squamous cell carcinomas (10%), and others (21%). Pathological staging showed 14 stage I (47%) and 16 stage II-IV (53%) cancers. LDCTs continue to confirm their efficacy in safely detecting early-stage lung cancer in high-risk subjects, with a negligible risk of false-positive results. Re-calculating the risk of developing lung cancer after baseline LDCTs with the Maisonneuve model allows us to optimize time intervals to subsequent screening. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial offers solid support for policy assessments by policymakers. We trust that this will help in developing guidelines for the large-scale implementation of lung cancer screening, paving the way for better outcomes for lung cancer patients.

Diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of stage IB non-small cell lung cancer with visceral pleural invasion.

With the increasing implementation of early lung cancer screening and the increasing emphasis on physical examinations, the early-stage lung cancer detection rate continues to rise. Visceral pleural invasion (VPI), which denotes the tumor's breach of the elastic layer or reaching the surface of the visceral pleura, stands as a pivotal factor that impacts the prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and directly influences the pathological staging of early-stage cases. According to the latest 9th edition of the TNM staging system for NSCLC, even when the tumor diameter is less than 3 cm, the final T stage remains T2a if VPI is present. There is considerable controversy within the guidelines regarding treatment options for stage IB NSCLC, especially among patients exhibiting VPI. Moreover, the precise determination of VPI is important in guiding treatment selection and prognostic evaluation in individuals with NSCLC. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the current status and advancements in studies pertaining to stage IB NSCLC accompanied by VPI.

Stakeholders' Voices of Lung Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: Study Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

Introduction: This study aims to (1) explore physicians' perceptions and experiences of lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, (2) evaluate physicians' readiness of implementing lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, (3) explore high-risk smokers' health beliefs of lung cancer and screening, (4) identify barriers and facilitators for high-risk Hong Kong smokers to screening for lung cancer, and (5) validate the Chinese Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale in relation to high-risk smokers in Hong Kong. Methods and analysis: A mixed methods design will be used in this study. Individual qualitative interviews will be conducted with physicians who have experience with high-risk smokers. Physicians' perceptions and experiences of lung cancer screening, and their readiness to accept lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, will be gathered through the qualitative interviews. A semi-structured interview guide will be used in the qualitative interviews. In addition, a quantitative survey with qualitative questions will be conducted on high-risk smokers to investigate their health beliefs of lung cancer and screening and barriers and facilitators for them to screening lung cancer. A lung cancer screening health belief scale, sociodemographic questionnaire, smoking and lung cancer screening history questionnaire, lung cancer and screening knowledge questionnaire, lung cancer stigma scale, generalized anxiety disorder scale, patient health questionnaire-9, patients' medical trust scale and preferred lung cancer screening intervention delivery questionnaire will be conducted in the quantitative survey. Constant comparison and content analysis will be used to analyze the qualitative data. Descriptive data analysis, validity and reliability analysis, one-way analysis of variance and post hoc analyses will be used to analyze quantitative data. Discussions: This study explores physicians' and high-risk smokers' perceptions and experiences toward lung cancer screening in Hong Kong. Findings from this study can help healthcare providers and policy makers become aware of the stakeholder's voices. In addition, these findings can help to inform the design of future interventional lung cancer screening programs and provide a tool to measure Chinese high-risk smokers' health beliefs toward lung cancer screening. A major limitation of this mixed methods study is the amount of time taken to complete the overall study. Also, its complexity requires more collaboration and networking among researchers. Ethics and dissemination: This study has minimal risk to the participants. It will be submitted to the university IRB for ethical approval. Findings related to physicians' perceptions and experiences of lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, physicians' readiness of implementing lung cancer screening, high-risk smokers' health beliefs of lung cancer and screening, barriers, and facilitators for high-risk Hong Kong smokers to screening lung cancer will be disseminated in journals and conferences. The reliability and validity of the Chinese lung cancer screening health belief scale will be reported in methodological research journals.

Primary Care Providers Experiences Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening.

Describe primary care providers' (PCPs) barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening programs in rural settings. We conducted qualitative interviews with PCPs practicing in rural Oregon from November 2019 to September 2020. The interview questions and analytic framework were informed by the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used inductive and deductive approaches for analysis. We interviewed 15 key participants from 12 distinct health care systems. We identified several Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research factors affecting lung cancer screening implementation. 1) Most PCPs did not have workflows to assist in discussing screening and relied on their memory and knowledge of the patient's history to prompt discussions. PCPs supported screening and managed the patient throughout the process. 2) PCPs reported several patient-level barriers, including geographic access to lung cancer screening scans and out-of-pocket cost concerns. 3) PCPs reported that champions are necessary to create opportunities for local practices to adopt lung cancer screening programs. Rural-practicing PCPs were supportive of lung cancer screening, however workflow processes, time challenges, and patient-reported barriers remain impediments to improved screening in their clinics. We identified several areas for improvement in lung cancer screening implementation in rural primary care practices, ranging from designing clinic workflows and processes to designating clinic staff to support referral, screening, and follow-up care for patients.

MA02.11 Population-Based Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: Coupling Model Parsimony and Performance to Determine Screening Eligibility

MA02.11 Population-Based Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: Coupling Model Parsimony and Performance to Determine Screening Eligibility

Assessing eligibility for lung cancer screening using parsimonious ensemble machine learning models: A development and validation study.

Risk-based screening for lung cancer is currently being considered in several countries; however, the optimal approach to determine eligibility remains unclear. Ensemble machine learning could support the development of highly parsimonious prediction models that maintain the performance of more complex models while maximising simplicity and generalisability, supporting the widespread adoption of personalised screening. In this work, we aimed to develop and validate ensemble machine learning models to determine eligibility for risk-based lung cancer screening. For model development, we used data from 216,714 ever-smokers recruited between 2006 and 2010 to the UK Biobank prospective cohort and 26,616 high-risk ever-smokers recruited between 2002 and 2004 to the control arm of the US National Lung Screening (NLST) randomised controlled trial. The NLST trial randomised high-risk smokers from 33 US centres with at least a 30 pack-year smoking history and fewer than 15 quit-years to annual CT or chest radiography screening for lung cancer. We externally validated our models among 49,593 participants in the chest radiography arm and all 80,659 ever-smoking participants in the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial. The PLCO trial, recruiting from 1993 to 2001, analysed the impact of chest radiography or no chest radiography for lung cancer screening. We primarily validated in the PLCO chest radiography arm such that we could benchmark against comparator models developed within the PLCO control arm. Models were developed to predict the risk of 2 outcomes within 5 years from baseline: diagnosis of lung cancer and death from lung cancer. We assessed model discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve, AUC), calibration (calibration curves and expected/observed ratio), overall performance (Brier scores), and net benefit with decision curve analysis. Models predicting lung cancer death (UCL-D) and incidence (UCL-I) using 3 variables-age, smoking duration, and pack-years-achieved or exceeded parity in discrimination, overall performance, and net benefit with comparators currently in use, despite requiring only one-quarter of the predictors. In external validation in the PLCO trial, UCL-D had an AUC of 0.803 (95% CI: 0.783, 0.824) and was well calibrated with an expected/observed (E/O) ratio of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.19). UCL-I had an AUC of 0.787 (95% CI: 0.771, 0.802), an E/O ratio of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.07). The sensitivity of UCL-D was 85.5% and UCL-I was 83.9%, at 5-year risk thresholds of 0.68% and 1.17%, respectively, 7.9% and 6.2% higher than the USPSTF-2021 criteria at the same specificity. The main limitation of this study is that the models have not been validated outside of UK and US cohorts. We present parsimonious ensemble machine learning models to predict the risk of lung cancer in ever-smokers, demonstrating a novel approach that could simplify the implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening in multiple settings.

Recruitment strategies and interventions to increase participation in lung cancer screening programmes: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionDespite strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose CT (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer (LC) mortality, implementing LC screening (LCS) programmes remains a challenge. We aim to systematically review...

Swiss Pilot Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Study: First Baseline Screening Results.

This pilot study conducted in Switzerland aims to assess the implementation, execution, and performance of low-dose CT lung cancer screening (LDCT-LCS). With lung cancer being the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Switzerland, the study seeks to explore the potential impact of screening on reducing mortality rates. However, initiating a lung cancer screening program poses challenges and depends on country-specific factors. This prospective study, initiated in October 2018, enrolled participants meeting the National Lung Cancer Study criteria or a lung cancer risk above 1.5% according to the PLCOm2012 lung cancer risk-model. LDCT scans were assessed using Lung-RADS. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing. To date, we included 112 participants, with a median age of 62 years (IQR 57-67); 42% were female. The median number of packs smoked each year was 45 (IQR 38-57), and 24% had stopped smoking before enrollment. The mean PLCOm2012 was 3.7% (±2.5%). We diagnosed lung cancer in 3.6% of participants (95%, CI:1.0-12.1%), with various stages, all treated with curative intent. The recall rate for intermediate results (Lung-RADS 3,4a) was 15%. LDCT-LCS in Switzerland, using modified inclusion criteria, is feasible. Further analysis will inform the potential implementation of a comprehensive lung cancer screening program in Switzerland.

A habituation memristor model for lung cancer screening application

—Lung cancer screening is critical to the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Today, computed tomography (CT) scanning technology provides a promising approach for the screening of lung cancer. Nevertheless, the redundant information in CT images often limits the efficiency and accuracy of screening. The biological sensory nervous system has an important mechanism for screening out redundant information, namely habituation. Here, we designed a second-order memristor model with habituation characteristics. Some of the habituation behavior of the memristor model has been demonstrated with LTspice simulation. Furthermore, the habituation memristor model is incorporated in a volatile memristor based leaky integrate and fire (LIF) neuron circuit to construct a simple neural system. The simulation results indicate that the neural system exhibits reliable habituation behaviors. Finally, lung cancer screening tasks have been implemented based on the neural system with habituation behavior. The habituation memristor circuit serves as a data preprocessing layer that filters out relevant information from lung cancer images. The results indicate that the performance and accuracy of lung cancer screening performance are noticeably better than the neural system without habituation behavior. This work provides a new idea for lung cancer screening implementation.

Navigation program for LDCT lung cancer screening implementation: A quality initiative.

10568 Background: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Despite recommendations from experts, the lung cancer screening has not been well adopted in practice. Methods: We started a pilot program in our cancer center in collaboration with Pulmonary medicine in November 2021 as we identified that the rates of Low Dose CT scan (LDCT) are meager in our community. Two areas that needed attention were identified. The first was the need for shared decision-making by the primary care physician (PCP) before ordering LDCT. The second was the follow-up for patients with positive lung nodules. A lung nodule patient navigator was assigned exclusively for this initiative. Reports were obtained from EPIC every month to identify patients who fit the criteria. PCPs of the respective patients were then reminded to discuss LDCT in the upcoming visit. The lung nodule navigator then followed the ordering and test results of LDCT. A dedicated lung nodule conference discussed all patients with positive lung nodules. Follow-up interventions included referrals to pulmonology, interventional radiology, or further imaging with PET scan. Per guidelines, patients who did not need acute intervention were kept on track for their follow-up CT as recommended. Results: We reviewed our baseline performance in LDCT from January to June 2021.The total screening included 271(32%) patients compared to 836 eligible patients who fit the criteria. From January 2022 to June 2022, out of 749 eligible patients who were expected to meet their PCP, 574(76%) patients received LDCT. Of the patients screened, 436(75%) had their baseline CT chest, with the remaining patients having follow-up CT. Fifteen patients had findings needing immediate intervention. Conclusions: The USPSTF has updated its annual lung cancer screening guidelines with LDCT for adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20-pack-year smoking history and current smoker or have quit within the past 15 years. With our approach, the screening rates have more than doubled compared to previous year. LDCT does carry certain risks, including false positive results and unnecessary biopsies; hence shared decision-making is needed before ordering the test. We identified the shared decision process as the rate limiting step across our institution. Our contact with PCP was a significant intervention that improved the screening. The second obstacle was the follow-up for positive LDCT, and we alleviated it with the multidisciplinary lung nodule conference. This process is undoubtedly difficult to achieve without a lung nodule navigator. Each hospital system is unique and has various difficulties implementing screening guidelines. We show that, with the help of a lung nodule navigator, the rates of lung cancer screening can be significantly increased.

China lung cancer screening (CLUS) version 2.0 with new techniques implemented: Artificial intelligence, circulating molecular biomarkers and autofluorescence bronchoscopy

ObjectiveThe present study, CLUS version 2.0, was conducted to evaluate the performance of new techniques in improving the implementation of lung cancer screening and to validate the efficacy of LDCT in reducing lung cancer-specific mortality in a high-risk Chinese population. MethodsFrom July 2018 to February 2019, high-risk participants from six screening centers in Shanghai were enrolled in our study. Artificial intelligence, circulating molecular biomarkers and autofluorescencebronchoscopy were applied during screening. ResultsA total of 5087 eligible high-risk participants were enrolled in the study; 4490 individuals were invited, and 4395 participants (97.9%) finally underwent LDCT detection. Positive screening results were observed in 857 (19.5%) participants. Solid nodules represented 53.6% of all positive results, while multiple nodules were the most common location type (26.8%). Up to December 2020, 77 participants received lung resection or biopsy, including 70 lung cancers, 2 mediastinal tumors, 1 tracheobronchial tumor, 1 malignant pleural mesothelioma and 3 benign nodules. Lung cancer patients accounted for 1.6% of all the screened participants, and 91.4% were in the early stage (stage 0–1). ConclusionsLDCT screening can detect a high proportion of early-stage lung cancer patients in a Chinese high-risk population. The utilization of new techniques would be conducive to improving the implementation of LDCT screening.

Newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer with interstitial lung abnormality: Prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis.

Along with the improvement of lung cancer screening implementation, the identification of interstitial lung abnormality (ILA) is increasing. Currently, there is a limited description of the oncogenic status and ILA subtypes among newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with ILA in the Chinese population. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, characteristics, oncogenic status and factors associated with overall survival (OS) among NSCLC patients with ILA. A total of 765 newly diagnosed NSCLC cases at our hospital were reviewed and ILA was diagnosed according to the criteria of the Fleischner Society. The characteristics, clinical pathological features and OS of NSCLC patients with ILA were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 765 patients included in the study, 101 (13.2%) cases experienced ILA at the time of NSCLC diagnosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that ILA was more likely to be detected in NSCLC patients who were age ≥60 (OR 2.404, p = 0.001), male gender (OR 2.476, p = 0.004), and EGFR wild-type (OR 2.035, p = 0.007). Additionally, according to the multivariate Cox model, the presence of ILA in NSCLC patients was significantly associated with a shorter OS period than those without ILA (751 days vs. 445 days, HR 0.6, p = 0.001). Following analysis, it was determined that OS in patients with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) was shorter than in those without UIP (HR 1.82, p = 0.037). ILA is a common comorbidity among newly diagnosed NSCLC patients. We found that patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC were more likely to develop ILA. The presence of ILA, especially UIP, was significantly associated with poor NSCLC prognosis.

Smoking status and the association between patient-level factors and survival among lung cancer patients.

Declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking, advances in targeted therapies, and implementation of lung cancer screening have changed the clinical landscape for lung cancer. The proportion of lung cancer deaths is increasing in those who have never smoked cigarettes. To better understand contemporary patterns in survival among patients with lung cancer, a comprehensive evaluation of factors associated with survival, including differential associations by smoking status, is needed. Patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2019, were identified. We estimated all-cause and lung cancer-specific median, 5-year, and multivariable restricted mean survival time (RMST) to identify demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors associated with survival, overall and stratified by smoking status (never, former, and current). Analyses included 6813 patients with lung cancer: 13.9% never smoked, 54.2% formerly smoked, and 31.9% currently smoked. All-cause RMST through 5 years for those who never, formerly, and currently smoked was 32.1, 25.9, and 23.3 months, respectively. Lung cancer-specific RMST was 36.3 months, 30.3 months, and 26.0 months, respectively. Across most models, female sex, younger age, higher socioeconomic measures, first-course surgery, histology, and body mass index were positively associated, and higher stage was inversely associated with survival. Relative to White patients, Black patients had increased survival among those who formerly smoked. We identify actionable factors associated with survival between those who never, formerly, and currently smoked cigarettes. These findings illuminate opportunities to address underlying mechanisms driving lung cancer progression, including use of first-course treatment, and enhanced implementation of tailored smoking cessation interventions for individuals diagnosed with cancer.

Developing a Pan-European Technical Standard for a Comprehensive High-quality Lung Cancer CT Screening Program. An ERS Technical Standard.

A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies (see below). Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee. Ten topics were identified representing key components of a screening program. The action on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked taskforce (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). Fifty-three statements were produced and areas for further research identified. This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high quality and effective program.

Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care and Pulmonary Clinics: Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Electronic Health Record-Integrated Everyday Shared Decision-Making Tool and Clinician-Facing Prompts

Although low-dose CT (LDCT) scan imaging lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality, it remains underused. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended to assess the balance of benefits and harms for each patient. Do clinician-facing electronic health record (EHR) prompts and an EHR-integrated everyday SDM tool designed to support routine incorporation of SDM into primary care improve LDCT scan imaging ordering and completion? A preintervention and postintervention analysis was conducted in 30 primary care and four pulmonary clinics for visits with patients who met United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for LCS. Propensity scores were used to adjust for covariates. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the expected benefit from screening (high benefit vsintermediate benefit), pulmonologist involvement (ie, whether the patient was seen in a pulmonary clinic in addition to a primary care clinic), sex, and race and ethnicity. In the 12-month preintervention phase among 1,090 eligible patients, 77 patients (7.1%) had LDCT scan imaging orders and 48 patients (4.4%) completed screenings. In the 9-month intervention phase among 1,026 eligible patients, 280 patients (27.3%) had LDCT scan imaging orders and 182 patients (17.7%) completed screenings. Adjusted ORs were 4.9 (95%CI, 3.4-6.9; P< .001) and 4.7 (95%CI, 3.1-7.1; P< .001) for LDCT imaging ordering and completion, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed increases in ordering and completion for all patient subgroups. In the intervention phase, the SDM tool was used by 23 of 102 ordering providers (22.5%) and for 69 of 274 patients (25.2%) for whom LDCT scan imaging was ordered and who needed SDM at the time of ordering. Clinician-facing EHR prompts and an EHR-integrated everyday SDM tool are promising approaches to improving LCS in the primary care setting. However, room for improvement remains. As such, further research is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04498052; URL: www. gov.

Personalized Treatment for Patients With Lung Cancer.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of death among all types of cancer in Germany, with an annual death rate of 45 000 patients. Over the past 15 years, innovations in diagnosis and treatment have prolonged the survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in all tumor stages. This review of the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is based on current national and international guidelines, and on prospective trials with the highest possible level of evidence that were retrieved by a selective search of the literature. Improved outcomes in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (85% of new diagnoses) were achieved with the aid of precise diagnostic techniques, including functional imaging and endobronchial procedures for localized disease stage. Contemporary surgical and radio-oncological technologies reduce the morbidity and expand the boundaries of local therapy. Molecular pathology, including the assessment of predictive biomarkers, is an integral part of the diagnostic evaluation of non-small-cell lung cancer in all tumor stages; it enables stratified cytotoxic/molecularly targeted treatments and immunotherapies and improves patient-reported outcomes. The percentage of long-term survivors in the metastatic stage has doubled by the introduction of immunotherapy. In contrast, there has been no major improvement in the survival of patients with small-cell lung cancer (15% of new diagnoses). In addition to the implementation of lung cancer screening in high-risk populations, the further development and consistent implementation of personalized diagnosis and treatment in certified lung cancer centers can be expected to prolong survival and improve the patients' quality of life.

"What do I think about implementing lung cancer screening? It all depends on how." Acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: The view of key stakeholders about health system factors.

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. Although international trials demonstrate that targeted screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT) significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, implementation of screening in the high-risk population presents complex health system challenges that need to be thoroughly understood to support policy change. To elicit health care providers' and policymakers' views about the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening (LCS) and barriers and enablers to implementation in the Australian setting. We conducted 24 focus groups and three interviews (22 focus groups and all interviews online) in 2021 with 84 health professionals, researchers, and current cancer screening program managers and policy makers across all Australian states and territories. Focus groups included a structured presentation about lung cancer and screening and lasted approximately one hour each. A qualitative approach to analysis was used to map topics to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Nearly all participants considered LCS to be acceptable and feasible but identified a wide range of implementation challenges. Topics (five specific to health systems and five cross-cutting with participant factors) identified were mapped to CFIR constructs, of which 'readiness for implementation', 'planning' and 'executing' were most salient. Health system factor topics included delivery of the LCS program, cost, workforce considerations, quality assurance and complexity of health systems. Participants strongly advocated for streamlined referral processes. Practical strategies to address equity and access, such as using mobile screening vans, were emphasised. Key stakeholders readily identified the complex challenges associated with the acceptability and feasibility of LCS in Australia. The barriers and facilitators across health system and cross-cutting topics were clearly elicited. These findings are highly relevant to the scoping of a national LCS program by the Australian Government and a subsequent recommendation for implementation.