Addressing Sex Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: USPSTF vs PLCOm2012 Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States. Prospective randomized lung screening trials suggest a greater lung cancer mortality benefit from screening women compared with men. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening guidelines that are based solely on age and smoking history contribute to sex disparities in eligibility, and if so, does the use of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model that is based on 11 predictors of lung cancer reduce sex disparities? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis of 883 lung cancer cases in the Chicago Race Eligibility for Screening Cohort (CREST) determined the sensitivity of USPSTF vs PLCOm2012 eligibility criteria, stratified according to sex. For comparisons vs the USPSTF 2013 and the recently published USPSTF 2021 (released March 9, 2021) eligibility criteria, the PLCOm2012 model was used with risk thresholds of ≥ 1.7%/6 years (6y) and ≥ 1.0%/6y, respectively. RESULTS: The sensitivities for screening by the USPSTF 2013 were 46.7% for women and 64.6% for men (P = .003) and by the USPSTF 2021 were 56.8% and 71.8%, respectively (P = .02). In contrast, the PLCOm2012 ≥ 1.7%/6y sensitivities were 64.6% and 70.4%, and the PLCOm2012 ≥ 1.0%/6y sensitivities were 77.4% and 82.4%. The PLCOm2012 differences in sensitivity using ≥ 1.7%/6y and ≥ 1.0%/6y thresholds between women and men were nonsignificant (both, P = .07). Compared with men, women were more likely to be ineligible according to the USPSTF 2021 criteria because their smoking exposures were < 20 pack-years (22.8% vs 14.8%; ORWomen vs Men, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.19-2.44; P = .002), and 27% of these ineligible women were eligible according to the PLCOm2012 ≥ 1.0%/6y criteria. INTERPRETATION: Although the USPSTF 2021 eligibility criteria are more sensitive than the USPSTF 2013 guidelines, sex disparities in eligibility remain. Adding the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model to the USPSTF guidelines would improve sensitivity and attenuate sex disparities.

Brief Report: Risk Prediction Model Versus United States Preventive Services Task Force 2020 Draft Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria-Reducing Race Disparities.

INTRODUCTION: Eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening based solely on age and smoking history are less sensitive than validated risk prediction models. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has proposed new guidelines to improve the sensitivity for selecting high-risk individuals and to decrease race disparity. In this retrospective study, termed the Chicago Race Eligibility for Screening Cohort, we compare the sensitivity of the proposed USPSTF2020 criteria versus the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model for selecting a racially diverse lung cancer population with a smoking history for lung cancer screening. METHODS: This Chicago Race Eligibility for Screening Cohort study applies the PLCOm2012 model with a risk threshold of 1.0%/6 years and the USPSTF2020 criteria (age 50-80 y, pack-years ≥ 20 y, quit-years ≤ 15 y) to 883 individuals with a smoking history diagnosed with having lung cancer. RESULTS: The PLCOm2012 was more sensitive than the USPSTF2020 overall (79.1% versus 68.6%, p < 0.0001) in White (81.5% versus 75.4%, p = 0.029) and in African American (82.8% versus 70.6% p < 0.0001) individuals. Of the total cohort, 254 (28.8%) would not have qualified owing to less than 20 pack-years, quit-time of more than 15 years, and age less than 50 years. Of these 254 cases, 40% would have qualified by the PLCOm2012 model. For the 20 pack-year criterion, of the 497 African American individuals, 19.3% did not meet this criterion, and of these, an additional 31.3% would have qualified by the PLCOm2012 model (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although more sensitive than USPSTF2013, the proposed USPSTF2020 draft guidelines still have a race disparity in eligibility for screening. This study provides "real world" evidence that use of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model eliminates this race disparity.

Risk Prediction Model Versus United States Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria: Reducing Race Disparities.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities exist in lung cancer outcomes between African American and white people. The current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening eligibility criteria, which is based solely on age and smoking history, may exacerbate racial disparities. We evaluated whether the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model more effectively selects African American ever-smokers for screening. METHODS: Lung cancer cases diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 at an urban medical center serving a racially and ethnically diverse population were retrospectively reviewed for lung cancer screening eligibility based on the USPSTF criteria versus the PLCOm2012 model. RESULTS: This cohort of 883 ever-smokers comprised the following racial and ethnic makeup: 258 white (29.2%), 497 African American (56.3%), 69 Hispanic (7.8%), 24 Asian (2.7%), and 35 other (4.0%). Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012 model increased the sensitivity for the African American cohort at lung cancer risk thresholds of 1.51%, 1.70%, and 2.00% per 6 years (p < 0.0001). For example, at the 1.70% risk threshold, the PLCOm2012 model identified 71.3% African American cases, whereas the USPSTF criteria only identified 50.3% (p < 0.0001). In contrast, in case of whites there was no difference (66.0% versus 62.4%, respectively [p = 0.203]). Of the African American ever-smokers who were PLCO1.7%-positive and USPSTF-negative, the criteria missed from the USPSTF were those with pack-years less than 30 (67.7%), quit time of greater than 15 years (22.5%), and age less than 55 years (13.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The PLCOm2012 model was found to be preferable over the USPSTF criteria at identifying African American ever-smokers for lung cancer screening. The broader use of this model in racially diverse populations may help overcome disparities in lung cancer screening and outcomes.