[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Table.  Baseline Characteristics of Individuals Undergoing Lung Cancer Screening Between March 9 and December 9, 2021
Baseline Characteristics of Individuals Undergoing Lung Cancer Screening Between March 9 and December 9, 2021
1.
Krist  AH, Davidson  KW, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;325(10):962-970. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1117 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Meza  R, Jeon  J, Toumazis  I,  et al.  Evaluation of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2021;325(10):988-997. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1077 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Rivera  MP, Katki  HA, Tanner  NT,  et al.  Addressing disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility and healthcare access: an official American Thoracic Society statement.   Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(7):e95-e112. doi:10.1164/rccm.202008-3053ST PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Lozier  JW, Fedewa  SA, Smith  RA, Silvestri  GA.  Lung cancer screening eligibility and screening patterns among Black and White adults in the United States.   JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(10):e2130350-e2130350. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30350 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Landy  R, Young  CD, Skarzynski  M,  et al.  Using prediction models to reduce persistent racial and ethnic disparities in the draft 2020 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(11):1590-1594. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa211 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Tammemägi  MC, Katki  HA, Hocking  WG,  et al.  Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening.   N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):728-736. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211776PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 2,503
    Citations 0
    Research Letter
    Oncology
    June 15, 2022

    Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening by Race After USPSTF Expansion of Screening Eligibility in 2021

    Author Affiliations
    • 1The Jane and Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • 2The Jane and Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute, Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • 3Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(6):e2217578. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17578
    Introduction

    The US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) broadened lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility in March 2021, lowering the minimum age to 50 years and decreasing smoking intensity to 20 pack-years.1 The expanded criteria have been projected to double the number of individuals with high risk eligible for LCS with low-dose computed tomography and further reduce lung cancer mortality.2,3 Moreover, the updated criteria may improve screening eligibility among vulnerable individuals, including African American, Hispanic, and female patients, and individuals who identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual communities as well as gender nonconforming individuals, who have previously experienced disproportionate underscreening.3 Specifically, African American individuals are less often eligible for LCS despite developing lung cancer at younger ages and with lower smoking intensity.1 Studies estimating the population-level outcomes associated with these changes in national cohorts have demonstrated mixed results with regard to relative increases in screening eligibility among racial and ethnic minorities, including African American individuals, and other underserved groups.2,4,5 There is a gap in knowledge about the directly observed impact of the USPSTF 2021 guidelines on LCS uptake in diverse populations. This study aims to begin to fill this gap by characterizing differences among individuals deemed eligible under USPSTF 2013 vs under USPTSF 2021 guidelines undergoing LCS in a centralized program.

    Methods

    This cross-sectional study was approved by the Thomas Jefferson University institutional review board and granted a waiver of informed consent because this was a minimal risk, retrospective study of individuals already in our LCS Program Registry. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

    Individuals who completed LCS between March 9 and December 9, 2021, through our centralized program at an urban, academic medical center were identified in our LCS Program Registry. This group was divided into a USPSTF 2013–eligible cohort (age ≥55 years and ≥30 pack-years, and quit <15 years ago) vs a USPSTF 2021–eligible cohort (age 50-54 years or 20-29 pack-years, and quit <15 years ago). Race, ethnicity, and gender were determined through self-report. For the purposes of this study examining race, race was recoded to African American, White, and other, which included individuals who identified as Alaskan Native or American Indian, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and more than 1 race. An historical cohort from the same 9-month period in 2019 was identified for additional comparison. Descriptive statistics, independent t tests, and χ2 tests were performed using a P < .05 significance threshold. Statistical analyses were 2-sided and conducted using SPSS statistical software version 26 (IBM) from December 13 to 16, 2021.

    Results

    Baseline characteristics of the 815 individuals (mean [SD] age, 63.71 [5.98] years; 466 [57.2%] women) screened during the study period are displayed in the Table, including 161 patients (19.8%) who were newly eligible by USPSTF 2021 criteria and 654 individuals (80.2%) eligible under 2013 criteria. This USPSTF 2021–eligible cohort had a significantly greater proportion of African American individuals than the USPSTF 2013–eligible cohort (54.0% vs 39.5%; P = .002) (Table). Newly eligible individuals more frequently reported current smoking status (65.2% vs 55.0%; P = .02). As expected, individuals eligible under USPSTF 2021 criteria had a lower frequency of Medicare insurance and a significantly lower mean PLCOm2012 lung cancer risk (a lung cancer risk prediction model derived from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial and modified using National Lung Screening Trial data by Tammemagi and colleagues6) compared with the cohort eligible under USPSTF 2013 criteria. There was no significant difference in gender, distribution of educational attainment, or Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) results between participants eligible under 2013 vs 2021 criteria. Comparison of the USPSTF 2013–eligible cohort screened in 2021 with a historical cohort screened in 2019 demonstrated no significant differences in age, gender, race or ethnicity, smoking history, PLCOm2012 risk, or Lung-RADS distribution.

    Discussion

    This cross-sectional study of LCS uptake found that a significantly higher proportion of African American individuals were screened through our centralized LCS program after implementation of the expanded USPSTF 2021 criteria, but this was not observed among women or individuals with low educational attainment. Characterization of newly eligible and screened individuals is critical, as African American individuals, women, and other populations previously experiencing underscreening may in fact receive a greater lung cancer mortality benefit from LCS compared with White men.2,3 Although revision of the USPSTF criteria initially spurred optimism for more equitable screening, some population-based studies have noted that expanded eligibility may paradoxically serve to perpetuate racial, ethnic, and other disparities.4,5 LCS is a complex process with a multitude of potential barriers, and social determinants of health care, such as insurance status and access to care, may continue to disproportionately limit access to screening services for underserved populations.4

    Limitations of this study include its single-institution design and a low rate of individuals reporting being a minority race or ethnicity other than African American. Future studies should examine USPSTF 2021–driven changes in LCS uptake as a function of relative changes in LCS eligibility to more completely define the impacts of the expanded criteria. Additional research is also needed in selection of LCS candidates using prediction models for lung cancer risk or life-years gained, which may improve screening efficiency for some groups, including those with lung cancer risk factors but who are ineligible for LCS.5

    Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in LCS for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening. Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for LCS.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: April 29, 2022.

    Published: June 15, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17578

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Shusted CS et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Julie A. Barta, MD, The Jane and Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, 834 Walnut St, Ste 650, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (julie.barta@jefferson.edu).

    Author Contributions: Dr Barta had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Shusted, Evans, Barta.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Shusted, Kane, Juon, Barta.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Shusted, Juon, Barta.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Shusted, Evans, Kane, Barta.

    Statistical analysis: Shusted, Juon.

    Obtained funding: Barta.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Evans, Kane, Barta.

    Supervision: Kane, Barta.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Evans reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Kane reported grants from Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the American College of Physicians outside the submitted work. Dr Barta reported receiving grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by the Prevent Cancer Foundation.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Meeting Presentation: This paper was presented at the International Conference of the American Thoracic Society; May 13 to 18, 2022; San Francisco, California.

    References
    1.
    Krist  AH, Davidson  KW, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;325(10):962-970. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1117 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Meza  R, Jeon  J, Toumazis  I,  et al.  Evaluation of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2021;325(10):988-997. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1077 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Rivera  MP, Katki  HA, Tanner  NT,  et al.  Addressing disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility and healthcare access: an official American Thoracic Society statement.   Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(7):e95-e112. doi:10.1164/rccm.202008-3053ST PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Lozier  JW, Fedewa  SA, Smith  RA, Silvestri  GA.  Lung cancer screening eligibility and screening patterns among Black and White adults in the United States.   JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(10):e2130350-e2130350. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30350 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Landy  R, Young  CD, Skarzynski  M,  et al.  Using prediction models to reduce persistent racial and ethnic disparities in the draft 2020 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(11):1590-1594. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa211 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Tammemägi  MC, Katki  HA, Hocking  WG,  et al.  Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening.   N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):728-736. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211776PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×