Introduction
Little is known about how clinicians make low-dose computed tomography lung cancer
screening decisions in practice. Investigators assessed the factors associated with
real-world decision making, hypothesizing that lung cancer risk and comorbidity would
not be associated with agreeing to or receiving screening. Though these factors are
key determinants of the benefit of lung cancer screening, they are often difficult
to incorporate into decisions without the aid of decision tools.
Methods
This was a retrospective cohort study of patients meeting current national eligibility
criteria and deemed appropriate candidates for lung cancer screening on the basis
of clinical reminders completed over a 2-year period (2013–2015) at 8 Department of
Veterans Affairs medical facilities. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression
models (conducted in 2019–2020) assessed predictors (age, sex, lung cancer risk, Charlson
Comorbidity Index, travel distance to facility, and central versus outlying decision-making
location) of primary outcomes of agreeing to and receiving lung cancer screening.
Results
Of 5,551 patients (mean age=67 years, 97% male, mean lung cancer risk=0.7%, mean Charlson
Comorbidity Index=1.14, median travel distance=24.2 miles), 3,720 (67%) agreed to
lung cancer screening and 2,398 (43%) received screening. Lung cancer risk and comorbidity
score were not strong predictors of agreeing to or receiving screening. Empirical
Bayes adjusted rates of agreeing to and receiving screening ranged from 22% to 84%
across facilities and from 19% to 85% across clinicians. A total of 33.7% of the variance
in agreeing to and 34.2% of the variance in receiving screening was associated with
the facility or the clinician offering screening.
Conclusions
Substantial variation was found in Veterans agreeing to and receiving lung cancer
screening during the Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project.
This variation was not explained by differences in key determinants of patient benefit,
whereas the facility and clinician advising the patient had a large impact on lung
cancer screening decisions.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Global epidemiology of lung cancer.Ann Glob Health. 2019; 85: 8
- Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death.N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 245-254
- Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2013;369(4):394].N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 728-736
- Development and validation of risk models to select ever-smokers for CT lung cancer screening.JAMA. 2016; 315: 2300-2311
- Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 395-409
- Poor uptake of lung cancer screening: opportunities for improvement.J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 446-450
- Mind the gap: addressing provider-level barriers to lung cancer screening.Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018; 15: 20-21
- Multilevel barriers to the successful implementation of lung cancer screening: why does it have to be so hard?.Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017; 14: 1261-1265
- Barriers to lung cancer screening engagement from the patient and provider perspective.Radiology. 2019; 290: 278-287
- Incorporating coexisting chronic illness into decisions about patient selection for lung cancer screening. An official American Thoracic Society research statement.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018; 198: e3-e13
- Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: how strong is the evidence?.JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174: 2019-2022
- Who should be screened for lung cancer? And who gets to decide.JAMA. 2016; 315: 2279-2281
- Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts [published correction appears in PLoS Med. 2015;12(1):e1001787].PLoS Med. 2014; 11e1001764
- Risk-targeted lung cancer screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2018; 168: 161-169
- Identifying patients for whom lung cancer screening is preference-sensitive: a microsimulation study.Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 1-9
- Life-gained-based versus risk-based selection of smokers for lung cancer screening.Ann Intern Med. 2019; 171: 623-632
- Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: a retrospective validation study [published correction appears in PLoS Med. 2020;17(9):e1003403]..PLoS Med. 2017; 14e1002277
- Implications of nine risk prediction models for selecting ever-smokers for computed tomography lung cancer screening.Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 10-19
- Implementation of lung cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration.JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177: 399-406
- Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 330-338
- Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 470-478
- The best use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index with electronic health care database to predict mortality.Med Care. 2016; 54: 188-194
- Overestimating outcome rates: statistical estimation when reliability is suboptimal.Health Serv Res. 2007; 42: 1718-1738
- Bayesian hierarchical models.JAMA. 2018; 320: 2365
PrOVE: PeRsonalizing Options through Veteran Engagement. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. https://www.queri.research.va.gov/programs/personalized_care.cfm. Updated June 18, 2018. Accessed December 10, 2019.
- The unreliability of individual physician “report cards” for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease.JAMA. 1999; 281: 2098-2105
- Multilevel (hierarchical) modeling: what it can and cannot do.Technometrics. 2006; 48: 432-435
- Exnovation of low value care: a decade of prostate-specific antigen screening practices.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019; 67: 29-36
- Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter.BMJ. 2012; 345: e6572
- Physician beliefs and patient preferences: a new look at regional variation in health care spending.Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2019; 11: 192-221
- Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-up for positive fecal occult blood test results: an observational study.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015; 24: 422-434
- CMS proposes coverage for lung cancer screening with low dose CT.Health Affairs, Bethesda, MDPublished December 9, 2014 (Accessed March 24, 2020)
- Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial.N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 503-513
- Basing eligibility for lung cancer screening on individualized risk calculators should save more lives, but life expectancy matters.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020; 112: 429-430
- How much do patients’ preferences contribute to resource use? [published correction appears in Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(4):1233].Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28: 864-873
- Much to do with nothing: microsimulation study on time management in primary care.BMJ. 2018; 363: k4983
Lung cancer screening. https://share.lungdecisionprecision.com/. Accessed January 28, 2018.
- Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening.JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178: 1311-1316
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 17, 2020
Identification
Copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
