Advertisement

Variation in Eligible Patients’ Agreeing to and Receiving Lung Cancer Screening: A Cohort Study

  • N. Joseph Leishman
    Affiliations
    Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Renda S. Wiener
    Affiliations
    The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

    Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts
    Search for articles by this author
  • Angela Fagerlin
    Affiliations
    Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah

    Informatics Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center for Innovation, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah
    Search for articles by this author
  • Rodney A. Hayward
    Affiliations
    Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Departments of Learning Health Sciences and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Julie Lowery
    Affiliations
    Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Tanner J. Caverly
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Tanner J. Caverly, MD, MPH, University of Michigan Medical School, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 326W, Ann Arbor MI 48104.
    Affiliations
    Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Departments of Learning Health Sciences and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Search for articles by this author
Published:December 17, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.10.014

      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 access
      One-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 Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Barta JA
        • Powell CA
        • Wisnivesky JP
        Global epidemiology of lung cancer.
        Ann Glob Health. 2019; 85: 8
        • Kovalchik SA
        • Tammemagi M
        • Berg CD
        • et al.
        Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 245-254
        • Tammemägi MC
        • Katki HA
        • Hocking WG
        • et al.
        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
        • Katki HA
        • Kovalchik SA
        • Berg CD
        • Cheung LC
        • Chaturvedi AK
        Development and validation of risk models to select ever-smokers for CT lung cancer screening.
        JAMA. 2016; 315: 2300-2311
        • Aberle DR
        • Adams AM
        • et al.
        • National Lung Screening Trial Research Team
        Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 395-409
        • Triplette M
        • Thayer JH
        • Pipavath SN
        • Crothers K
        Poor uptake of lung cancer screening: opportunities for improvement.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 446-450
        • Vachani A
        • Schapira MM
        Mind the gap: addressing provider-level barriers to lung cancer screening.
        Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018; 15: 20-21
        • Carter-Harris L
        • Gould MK
        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
        • Wang GX
        • Baggett TP
        • Pandharipande PV
        • et al.
        Barriers to lung cancer screening engagement from the patient and provider perspective.
        Radiology. 2019; 290: 278-287
        • Rivera MP
        • Tanner NT
        • Silvestri GA
        • et al.
        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
        • Woolf SH
        • Harris RP
        • Campos-Outcalt D
        Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: how strong is the evidence?.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174: 2019-2022
        • Gould MK
        Who should be screened for lung cancer? And who gets to decide.
        JAMA. 2016; 315: 2279-2281
        • Tammemägi MC
        • Church TR
        • Hocking WG
        • et al.
        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
        • Kumar V
        • Cohen JT
        • van Klaveren D
        • et al.
        Risk-targeted lung cancer screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Ann Intern Med. 2018; 168: 161-169
        • Caverly TJ
        • Cao P
        • Hayward RA
        • Meza R
        Identifying patients for whom lung cancer screening is preference-sensitive: a microsimulation study.
        Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 1-9
        • Cheung LC
        • Berg CD
        • Castle PE
        • Katki HA
        • Chaturvedi AK
        Life-gained-based versus risk-based selection of smokers for lung cancer screening.
        Ann Intern Med. 2019; 171: 623-632
        • Ten Haaf K
        • Jeon J
        • Tammemägi MC
        • et al.
        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
        • Katki HA
        • Kovalchik SA
        • Petito LC
        • et al.
        Implications of nine risk prediction models for selecting ever-smokers for computed tomography lung cancer screening.
        Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 10-19
        • Kinsinger LS
        • Anderson C
        • Kim J
        • et al.
        Implementation of lung cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177: 399-406
        • Moyer VA
        Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 330-338
        • Bach PB
        • Kattan MW
        • Thornquist MD
        • et al.
        Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 470-478
        • Bannay A
        • Chaignot C
        • Blotière PO
        • et al.
        The best use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index with electronic health care database to predict mortality.
        Med Care. 2016; 54: 188-194
        • Hayward RA
        • Heisler M
        • Adams J
        • Dudley RA
        • Hofer TP
        Overestimating outcome rates: statistical estimation when reliability is suboptimal.
        Health Serv Res. 2007; 42: 1718-1738
        • McGlothlin AE
        • Viele K
        Bayesian hierarchical models.
        JAMA. 2018; 320: 2365
      1. 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.

        • Hofer TP
        • Hayward RA
        • Greenfield S
        • Wagner EH
        • Kaplan SH
        • Manning WG
        The unreliability of individual physician “report cards” for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease.
        JAMA. 1999; 281: 2098-2105
        • Gelman A
        Multilevel (hierarchical) modeling: what it can and cannot do.
        Technometrics. 2006; 48: 432-435
        • Bynum J
        • Passow H
        • Carmichael D
        • Skinner J
        Exnovation of low value care: a decade of prostate-specific antigen screening practices.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019; 67: 29-36
        • Mulley AG
        • Trimble C
        • Elwyn G
        Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter.
        BMJ. 2012; 345: e6572
        • Cutler D
        • Skinner J
        • Stern AD
        • Wennberg D
        Physician beliefs and patient preferences: a new look at regional variation in health care spending.
        Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2019; 11: 192-221
        • Partin MR
        • Burgess DJ
        • Burgess Jr, JF
        • et al.
        Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-up for positive fecal occult blood test results: an observational study.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015; 24: 422-434
        • Hughes DL
        CMS proposes coverage for lung cancer screening with low dose CT.
        Health Affairs, Bethesda, MDPublished December 9, 2014 (Accessed March 24, 2020)
        • de Koning HJ
        • van der Aalst CM
        • de Jong PA
        • et al.
        Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 503-513
        • Katki HA
        • Cheung LC
        • Landy R
        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
        • Anthony DL
        • Herndon MB
        • Gallagher PM
        • et al.
        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
        • Caverly TJ
        • Hayward RA
        • Burke JF
        Much to do with nothing: microsimulation study on time management in primary care.
        BMJ. 2018; 363: k4983
      2. Lung cancer screening. https://share.lungdecisionprecision.com/. Accessed January 28, 2018.

        • Brenner AT
        • Malo TL
        • Margolis M
        • et al.
        Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178: 1311-1316