Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Research Articles

173 Impact of smoking cessation duration on eligibility for lung cancer screening

173 Impact of smoking cessation duration on eligibility for lung cancer screening

164 Participant recollection of recent imaging is unreliable for determining eligibility for lung cancer screening

164 Participant recollection of recent imaging is unreliable for determining eligibility for lung cancer screening

Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.

Pack-year smoking history is an imperfect and biased measure of cumulative tobacco exposure. The use of pack-year smoking history to determine lung cancer screening eligibility in the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline may unintentionally exclude many high-risk individuals, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups. It is unclear whether using a smoking duration cutoff instead of a smoking pack-year cutoff would improve the selection of individuals for screening. We analyzed 49,703 individuals with a smoking history from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and 22,126 individuals with a smoking history from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) to assess eligibility for screening under the USPSTF guideline versus a proposed guideline that replaces the ≥20-pack-year criterion with a ≥20-year smoking duration criterion. Under the USPSTF guideline, only 57.6% of Black patients with lung cancer in the SCCS would have qualified for screening, whereas a significantly higher percentage of White patients with lung cancer (74.0%) would have qualified (P < .001). Under the proposed guideline, the percentage of Black and White patients with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening increased to 85.3% and 82.0%, respectively, eradicating the disparity in screening eligibility between the groups. In the BWHS, using a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff increased the percentage of Black women with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening from 42.5% to 63.8%. Use of a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff greatly increases the proportion of patients with lung cancer who would qualify for screening and eliminates the racial disparity in screening eligibility between Black versus White individuals; smoking duration has the added benefit of being easier to calculate and being a more precise assessment of smoking exposure compared with pack-year smoking history.

Abstract 6075: Most cancer deaths are unaddressed by current screening paradigms

Abstract Cancer is the leading cause of death at ages ≤80 in the US. To understand the burden of cancer death potentially addressable by new or improved screening approaches, we estimated the proportion of US cancer deaths without recommended guideline-based screening, especially after accounting for lung cancer screening eligibility and adherence. Using 2018-2019 mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics and published estimates of the proportion of screening-eligible lung cancer patients, we estimated that 31.4% of nearly 600,000 annual cancer deaths were from colorectal, female breast, cervical, and smoking-eligible lung cancers (Table). Further accounting for adherence to lung cancer screening guidelines reduced the estimated proportion of screened cancer deaths to 17.4%; thus, 82.6% of cancer deaths may not be addressed by current guideline-based screening. Among the cancers not covered by guideline-based screening are uncommon cancer types, which (as defined by the National Cancer Institute) comprised 30.4% of cancer deaths. According to incidence-based mortality data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries, 24.7% of all cancer deaths were from stage 4 cancer types without guideline-based screening. These estimates, based on population data without patient-level information on mode of diagnosis, almost certainly underestimate the percentage of cancer deaths missed by currently available screening efforts. The large proportion of cancer deaths unaddressed by guideline-based screening represents a vast opportunity for new cancer screening technologies that are safe, effective, accessible, and affordable to enable earlier detection and successful treatment of the full spectrum of cancer types that contribute to the overall cancer burden. Table. Deaths from cancer by primary type in 2018-2019, US National Center for Health Statistics, with eligibility for and adherence to guideline-based low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer All cancer types Lung Colon/rectum Breast (female) Uterine cervix Total screened % of all All cancer deaths 1,198,854 281,681 104,059 84,745 8,290 478,775 39.9% Eligible for screening based on smoking (63.7% of lung)* 179,431 104,059 84,745 8,290 376,525 31.4% Adherent to smoking-guideline-based screening (6.6% of lung)† 11,842 104,059 84,745 8,290 208,936 17.4% *Modeled estimate of proportion of lung cancer patients eligible for screening (Landy et al. 2023). †Lung cancer screening receipt from 2019 American College of Radiology Lung Cancer Screening Registry (Fedewa et al. 2022). Citation Format: Ellen T. Chang, Anuraag Kansal, Earl A. Hubbell, Graham A. Colditz, Allison W. Kurian, Christina A. Clarke. Most cancer deaths are unaddressed by current screening paradigms [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 6075.

Revisiting the lung cancer screening eligibility criteria to promote equity for Black individuals

BackgroundEarly detection using low-dose computed tomography reduces lung-cancer-specific mortality by 20% among high-risk individuals. Blacks are less likely than Whites to meet lung cancer screening (LCS) criteria under both the former and the updated United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. The purpose of this study was to assess racial disparities in LCS eligibility and to propose tailored eligibility criteria for Blacks to enable equitable screening rate between Whites and Blacks. MethodsData for this study were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017–2021). 101,552 subjects were included in the final analysis. By employing a systematic approach, we sought cut-off points at which Blacks were equally likely as Whites to be eligible for LCS. We evaluated the minimum age and smoking pack-years for Blacks while we retained the 2021 USPSTF criteria for Whites. The final decision was based on the minimum Wald’s Chi-square statistics. ResultsThe model we employed identified cut-off points at which Blacks were equally likely as Whites to be eligible for LCS. Retaining the 2021 USPSTF criteria for Whites, the model discovered a new pair of points for Blacks by reducing the minimum age to 43 years and decreasing the cumulative number of cigarettes smoked to 15 pack-years. Based on these cut-off points, we created tailored criteria for Blacks. Under the tailored criteria, Blacks (OR: 1.00; 95 %CI: 0.88–1.14) had the same odds of eligibility for LCS as Whites. The odds of eligibility for LCS by sex under the tailored criteria did not differ significantly for Black men (OR: 1.02; 95 %CI: 0.85–1.24) and Black women (OR: 0.95; 95 %CI: 0.81–1.12) compared to their respective White counterparts. ConclusionsThese tailored criteria for Blacks eliminate the disparities between Blacks and Whites in LCS eligibility. Future studies should test the sensitivity and specificity of these tailored criteria.

Harnessing Opportunity: Pilot Intervention to Improve Lung Cancer Screening for Women Undergoing Breast Screening Mammography

IntroductionThe screening mammogram could be a “teachable moment” to improve lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake. The aim of our project was to combine patient self-referral with eligibility identification by providers as a two-pronged approach to increase rates of LCS among eligible women. MethodsLCS education materials were created to stimulate patient education and encourage self-referral. Chart review of patients scheduled for screening mammography was performed to identify patients who met LCS criteria. The primary outcome was rate of acceptance of targeted interventions as measured by qualitative survey material and rate of LCS uptake. ResultsBetween August 2022 and August 2023, 116 patients were identified by providers for potential eligibility for LCS and 34 patients (29.3%) deemed eligible based on the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force 2021 guidelines. There were 19 patients (56%) who completed LCS with three patients (16%) with screen-detected nodules that led to further workup. Post-implementation qualitative survey results reveal that 100% of the participants rated their shared decision-making visit experience as “very helpful” and 67% responded “very likely” to seek simultaneous breast and LCS in the future. Informational materials were rated as 80% favorable among all respondents; however, the rate of self-referral alone was 0%. The combined rates of eligible patients lost to follow-up or refusal was 24%. ConclusionThe self-referral aspect of the intervention revealed that patients are unlikely to self-refer for LCS. Nevertheless, patients undergoing screening mammograms individually identified for LCS were very responsive to learning more about dual screening.

Personal history of cancer as a risk factor for second primary lung cancer: Implications for lung cancer screening.

Personal history of cancer is an independent risk factor for lung cancer but is omitted from existing lung cancer screening eligibility criteria. In this study, we assess the lung cancer risk among cancer survivors and discuss potential implications for screening. This was a retrospective, secondary analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry and the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). We estimated the standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for lung cancer by site of first primary cancer using data from SEER. We assessed the lung cancer risk among head and neck cancer survivors from MDACC using cumulative incidence and compared the risk ratios (RR) by individuals' screening eligibility status. Other than first primary lung cancer (SIR: 5.10, 95% CI: 5.01-5.18), cancer survivors in SEER with personal history of head and neck cancer (SIR: 3.71, 95% CI: 3.63-3.80) had the highest risk of developing second primary lung cancer, followed by bladder (SIR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.81-1.90) and esophageal cancers (SIR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.61-1.96). Head and neck cancer survivors had higher risk to develop lung cancer compared to the National Lung Screening Trial's subjects, (781 vs. 572 per 100,000 person-years, respectively). Head and neck cancer survivors ineligible for lung cancer screening seen at MDACC had significantly higher lung cancer risk than head and neck cancer survivors from SEER (RR: 1.9, p < 0.001). Personal history of cancer, primarily head and neck cancer, is an independent risk factor for lung cancer and may be considered as an eligibility criterion in future lung cancer screening recommendations.

Disparities across the continuum of lung cancer care: a review of recent literature.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Health disparities have long been noted in lung cancer incidence and survival and persist across the continuum of care. Understanding the gaps in care that arise from disparities in lung cancer risk, screening, treatment, and survivorship are essential to guiding efforts to achieve equitable care. Recent literature continues to show that Black people, women, and people who experience socioeconomic disadvantage or live in rural areas experience disparities throughout the spectrum of lung cancer care. Contributing factors include structural racism, lower education level and health literacy, insurance type, healthcare facility accessibility, inhaled carcinogen exposure, and unmet social needs. Promising strategies to improve lung cancer care equity include policy to reduce exposure to tobacco smoke and harmful pollutants, more inclusive lung cancer screening eligibility criteria, improved access and patient navigation in lung cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment, more deliberate offering of appropriate surgical and medical treatments, and improved availability of survivorship and palliative care. Given ongoing disparities in lung cancer care, research to determine best practices for narrowing these gaps and to guide policy change are an essential focus of future lung cancer research.

Quantitative imaging workshop XIX: Utilizing quantitative thoracic imaging to optimize population health final summary.

Lung cancer screening involves the use of thoracic CT for both detection and measurements of suspicious lung nodules to guide the screening management. Since lung cancer screening eligibility typically requires age over 50 years along with >20 pack-year tobacco exposure, thoracic CT scans also frequently reveal evidence for pulmonary emphysema as well as coronary artery calcification. These three thoracic diseases are collectively three of the leading causes of premature death across the world. Screening for the major thoracic diseases in this heavily tobacco-exposed cohort is broadening the focus of lung cancer screening to a more comprehensive health evaluation including discussing the relevance of screen-detected findings of the heart and lung parenchyma. The status and implications of these emerging issues were reviewed in a multidisciplinary workshop focused on the process of quantitative imaging in the lung cancer screening setting to guide the evolution of this important new area of public health.

Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

Abstract C120: Evaluating potential disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility and uptake in a large urban healthcare system

Abstract Lung cancer screening (LCS) currently has a low reported uptake rate in eligible patients. Identifying the population eligible for screening is crucial to assessing uptake yet is more difficult than for other cancer screening tests as LCS requires documentation of smoking history. Because new screening recommendations may experience disparities in early implementation, it is crucial to evaluate the uptake of LCS in diverse populations. The goal of this study is to evaluate any potential disparities in the uptake of LCS at a large healthcare system in southeast Michigan using previously published eligibility assessment methods. We assessed patient LCS eligibility using Medicare criteria (ages 50-77, currently/formerly smoking within 15 years and at least 20 pack-years) and two methods: a cross-sectional method currently in place clinically and a published algorithm using longitudinal data, accounting for all smoking history entries in the patient’s record. We compared differences in eligibility across patient-reported race and sex groups (Black female, Black male, White female, and White male). Using electronic health record data, we determined how many patients had received an LCS low-dose chest CT (LDCT) or an LDCT for another reason in the previous twelve months. These patients are considered up to date with screening. For both eligibility and uptake, we used Chi-Square for pairwise comparisons with a multiple comparisons adjustment to evaluate differences across race-sex categories. In total, 143,740 patients between the ages of 50-77 with no history of lung cancer had a healthcare encounter between July and December 2022. Of those patients, 38,026 (26.5%) were determined to be eligible for LCS. There were observed differences across the race-sex groups; Black female patients had the lowest proportion of those eligible (20.3%) while White male patients had the highest proportion eligible (29.5%). Of eligible patients, 9,718 (25.6%) received a verified LCS LDCT in the preceding twelve months; 7,144 (18.8%) received a LDCT for another reason; resulting in 44.3% being up to date with screening. Black female patients were the race-sex category with the highest proportion screened in the previous 12 months, and White male patients had the lowest proportion of patients screened (34.0% Black female, 28.8% Black male, 24.5% White female, 24.3% White male; p&amp;lt;0.0001). Black male patients had the highest proportion receiving an LDCT for any reason, and White females had the lowest (51.9% Black female, 52.4% Black male, 41.4% White female, 44.4% White male; p&amp;lt;0.0001). Our estimates indicate that 44.3% of patients would be considered up to date with screening, and 18.8% received an LCS LDCT. These estimates are higher than other reported LCS rates but significantly less than other cancer screening rates. These data do not suggest disparities exist related to the uptake of LCS at our health system; however, uptake remains low and measures to increase uptake should include methods effective and acceptable in diverse patients. Citation Format: Elizabeth R. Alleman, Katie Latack, Jessica Dagenais, Michael Sheehan, Katherine R. Zarins, Vritti Gupta, Michael Simoff, Christine Neslund-Dudas. Evaluating potential disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility and uptake in a large urban healthcare system [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr C120.

Empowering women’s health: Opportunity to bridge breast cancer screening to lung cancer screening.

121 Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death for women in the United States (US). It surpasses the combined mortality rate of breast, cervical and ovarian cancers. Early detection of LC at stage I increases the 5-year survival rate to 80%. Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) is an effective tool for early detection. However, while 78% of women over 50 in the US undergo Breast Cancer Screening (BCS), only 6% of eligible women receive LCS. Methods: This is a retrospective study of all women diagnosed with primary LC presenting to Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center from January 2019 to December 2020. We collected sociodemographic characteristics and information related to smoking history, LCS and BCS. We excluded patients with a prior history of lung or breast cancer who were under surveillance, and those with unknown smoking history. We assessed the BCS and LCS eligibility and utilization according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force latest recommendations. We also determined the utilization of LCS in women who have received BCS. Results: Among the 307 women who met the eligibility criteria, 87.6% were white, 51.8% had a Medicare insurance, 41.7% were ever-smoker, and 64.5% had advanced stages of LC (Stage II-Stage IV). Approximately half of our cohort was eligible for LCS, but only 20% received LCS. On the other hand, 72% were eligible for BCS and 58% of them underwent BCS. Among women who received BCS and were eligible for LCS, only25% underwent LCS. The median time from BCS to LC diagnosis was approximately 2.2 years. Among the 178 women who received BCS within one year prior to LC diagnosis, 27% underwent LCS. Among the remaining women who did not have LCS,66.7% of women were already in a later stage (Stage II-IV) at the time of LC diagnosis. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that majority of women, who met the eligibility criteria for BCS and LCS, received BCS but not LCS prior to their LC diagnosis. This shows that despite the potential mortality benefit, LCS is still underutilized. Receiving LCS at the time of BCS can provide a valuable opportunity to increase LCS participation among eligible women and the potential of diagnosing LC at earlier stages.

Addressing lung cancer screening eligibility in Spain using 2013 and 2021 US Preventive Service Task Force criteria: cross-sectional study

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to ascertain the percentage of Spanish lung cancer cases that would fulfil the lung cancer screening inclusion criteria recommended by the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013 and 2021.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out. All lung cancer cases registered in the Thoracic Tumor Registry with data on date of birth, date of diagnosis, smoking habit, number of pack-years and time elapsed since smoking cessation were included.ResultsThe study included 15 006 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Spain between 2016 and 2022. Eligibility to participate in screening increased from 53.7% to 63.5% (an increase of 9.8%) according to the 2013 and 2021 recommendations, respectively. The percentage of eligible men rose by 9.2 percentage points with the 2021versus2013 recommendations, whereas this rise was 11.5 percentage points in women. Under the 2021 recommendations, 36.6% of women and 5.3% of men would not have fulfilled the screening inclusion criteria due to being never-smokers; 14.9% of women and 11.0% of men would not have fulfilled the age criterion; and 27.0% of ex-smokers among women compared to 35.6% among men would not have been eligible due to &gt;15 years having elapsed since smoking cessation.ConclusionsIn Spain, over one-third of lung cancer cases could not be detected through screening, by virtue of not meeting the most recent inclusion criteria stated by the USPSTF. The degree of fulfilment in a potential nationwide screening programme should be analysed, with the aim of establishing inclusion criteria in line with each country's context.

MA02.04 Does the Evidence Support Years-Since-Quit Smoking as a Factor in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

MA02.04 Does the Evidence Support Years-Since-Quit Smoking as a Factor in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

OA07.04 Effectiveness of NELSON versus PLCOm2012 Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria: First Results from the German HANSE Study

OA07.04 Effectiveness of NELSON versus PLCOm2012 Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria: First Results from the German HANSE Study

MA02.08 Pack-Year Smoking History Is An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

MA02.08 Pack-Year Smoking History Is An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

Sensitivity of US Preventive Services Task Force and PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria in individuals with lung cancer in South Dakota self-reporting as Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Screening individuals who are at elevated risk using low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality by ≥20%. Individuals who have community-based factors that contribute to an increased risk of developing lung cancer have high lung cancer rates and are diagnosed at younger ages. In this study of lung cancer in South Dakota, the authors compared the sensitivity of screening eligibility criteria for self-reported Indigenous race and evaluated the need for screening at younger ages. US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 and 2021 (USPSTF2013 and USPSTF2021) criteria and two versions of the PLCOm2012 risk-prediction model (based on the 2012 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO] Cancer Screening Trial), one with a predictor for race and one without, were applied at USPSTF-equivalent thresholds of ≥1.7% in 6 years and ≥1.0% in 6 years to 1565 individuals who were sequentially diagnosed with lung cancer (of whom 12.7% self-reported as Indigenous) at the Monument Health Cancer Care Institute in South Dakota (2010-2019). Eligibility sensitivities of USPSTF criteria did not differ significantly between individuals who self-reported their race as Indigenous and those who did not (p>.05). Sensitivities of both PLCOm2012 models were significantly higher than comparable USPSTF criteria. The sensitivity of USPSTF2021 criteria was 66.1% and, for comparable PLCOm2012 models with and without race, sensitivity was 90.7% and 89.6%, respectively (both p<.001); 1.4% of individuals were younger than 50years, and proportions did not differ by Indigenous classification (p=.518). Disparities in screening eligibility were not observed for individuals who self-reported their race as Indigenous. USPSTF criteria had lower sensitivities for lung cancer eligibility. Both PLCOm2012 models had high sensitivities, with higher sensitivity for the model that included race. The PLCOm2012noRace model selected effectively in this population, and screening individuals younger than 50years did not appear to be justified. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Studies show that using low-dose computed tomography scans to screen people who smoke or who used to smoke and are at elevated risk for lung cancer reduces lung cancer deaths. This study of 1565 individuals with lung cancer in South Dakota compared screening eligibility using US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and a lung cancer risk-prediction model (PLCOm2012; from the 2012 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian [PLCO] Cancer Screening Trial). The model had higher sensitivity and picked more people with lung cancer to screen compared with USPSTF criteria. Eligibility sensitivities were similar for individuals who self-reported as Indigenous versus those who did not between USPSTF criteria and the model.

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.

Persistent race- and sex-based disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility

ObjectiveTo evaluate race- and sex-based disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility under the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network lung cancer screening guidelines. MethodsParticipants in the Southern Community Cohort Study with a smoking history diagnosed with lung cancer from 2002 to 2021 were identified for analysis. Differences in age at lung cancer diagnosis and smoking characteristics were evaluated among 4 groups: Black men, Black women, White men, and White women. ResultsA total of 2011 patients with lung cancer met study inclusion criteria, of whom 968 (48.1%) were women and 1248 (62.1%) were Black. Under the 2013 guideline, Black men with lung cancer were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening when compared with White men with lung cancer (37.7% vs 62.4%; P < .001), and Black women with lung cancer were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening when compared with White women with lung cancer (27.8% vs 56.7%; P < .001). Under the 2021 guideline, 62.6% of Black and 73.8% of White men (P < .001) with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening, resulting in an 11.2 percentage point difference in screening eligibility between Black and White men. Under the 2021 guideline, 50.3% of Black and 74.9% of White (P < .001) women with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening; notably, there remained a 24.6 percentage point difference in screening eligibility between Black and White women. In multivariable-adjusted analysis, under the 2021 USPSTF guideline, Black men with lung cancer had 46% lower odds of being eligible for screening compared with White men with lung cancer (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.76; P < .001) and Black women with lung cancer had 66% lower odds of being eligible for screening compared with White women with lung cancer (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P < .001). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline increased the proportion of patients with lung cancer eligible for screening in each group. ConclusionsIn this analysis of patients with lung cancer in the Southern Community Cohort Study, there remained a large gap in lung cancer screening eligibility between Black and White men and women under the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force guideline. Only 50% of Black women and 63% of Black men diagnosed with lung cancer would have qualified for screening.

Methods for Using Race and Ethnicity in Prediction Models for Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.

Using race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models can reduce or inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities in medical decisions. To compare eligibility for lung cancer screening in a contemporary representative US population by refitting the life-years gained from screening-computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model to exclude race and ethnicity vs a counterfactual eligibility approach that recalculates life expectancy for racial and ethnic minority individuals using the same covariates but substitutes White race and uses the higher predicted life expectancy, ensuring that historically underserved groups are not penalized. The 2 submodels composing LYFS-CT NoRace were refit and externally validated without race and ethnicity: the lung cancer death submodel in participants of a large clinical trial (recruited 1993-2001; followed up until December 31, 2009) who ever smoked (n = 39 180) and the all-cause mortality submodel in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 1997-2001 participants aged 40 to 80 years who ever smoked (n = 74 842, followed up until December 31, 2006). Screening eligibility was examined in NHIS 2015-2018 participants aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to September 2022. Including and removing race and ethnicity (African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, White) in each LYFS-CT submodel. By race and ethnicity: calibration of the LYFS-CT NoRace model and the counterfactual approach (ratio of expected to observed [E/O] outcomes), US individuals eligible for screening, predicted days of life gained from screening by LYFS-CT. The NHIS 2015-2018 included 25 601 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked (2769 African American, 649 Asian American, 1855 Hispanic American, and 20 328 White individuals). Removing race and ethnicity from the submodels underestimated lung cancer death risk (expected/observed [E/O], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00) and all-cause mortality (E/O, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) in African American individuals. It also overestimated mortality in Hispanic American (E/O, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) and Asian American individuals (E/O, 1.14, 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Consequently, the LYFS-CT NoRace model increased Hispanic American and Asian American eligibility by 108% and 73%, respectively, while reducing African American eligibility by 39%. Using LYFS-CT with the counterfactual all-cause mortality model better maintained calibration across groups and increased African American eligibility by 13% without reducing eligibility for Hispanic American and Asian American individuals. In this study, removing race and ethnicity miscalibrated LYFS-CT submodels and substantially reduced African American eligibility for lung cancer screening. Under counterfactual eligibility, no one became ineligible, and African American eligibility increased, demonstrating the potential for maintaining model accuracy while reducing disparities.