Variation in Reporting of Incidental Findings on Initial Lung Cancer Screening and Associations With Clinician Assessment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the distribution, frequency, and clinical significance of incidental findings (IFs) on initial lung cancer screening (LCS) and the association of report characteristics with subsequent assessment. METHODS: Health records of patients undergoing initial LCS from 2015 to 2018 in the Minneapolis VA Health Care System were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System coding, IFs, and subsequent clinical assessment. IFs were considered potentially significant if they were likely to require any follow-up. High-risk significant IFs (SIFs) were potentially malignant. The primary outcome was the SIF being addressed. Outcomes were analyzed using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Patients (n = 901) were primarily male (94.1%) smokers (62.1%) with a mean age of 65.2 years. IFs were extremely common (93.9%), with an average of 2.6 IFs per scan (n = 2,296). Seven hundred eighty-six IFs (34.2%) were deemed likely SIFs, of which 58 (7.4%) were high risk. Two hundred twenty-two (28.2%) were addressed by clinicians, of which 104 (13.2%) underwent testing. Reporting of SIFs varied among radiologists, with at least one SIF in the impression in 24% to 78% of low-dose CT studies with the S modifier, used to indicate the presence of a SIF, applied to 0% to 51% of reports. In the mutually adjusted model, radiologist recommendation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.23-9.76), high-risk finding (adjusted OR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.81-10.45), and reporting in the impression (adjusted OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.28-5.18) were associated with increased odds of the SIF's being addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists vary in their reporting of IFs on LCS. Further standardization of reporting of SIFs may improve this process, with the simultaneous goals of generating appropriate testing when needed and minimizing low-value care.

National Survey of Lung Cancer Screening Practices in Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening can save lives through the early detection of lung cancer, and professional societies recommend key lung cancer screening program components to ensure high-quality screening. Yet, little is known about the key components that comprise the various screening program models in routine clinical settings. The objective was to compare the utilization of these key components across centralized, hybrid, and decentralized lung cancer screening programs. METHODS: The survey was designed to identify current structures and processes of lung cancer screening programs. It was administered electronically to Veterans Health Administration facilities nationally (N=122) between August and December 2021. Results were analyzed between March and August 2022 and stratified by self-identified lung cancer screening program type, and we tested the hypothesis that centralized screening programs would be more likely to have implemented practices that support lung cancer screening, followed by hybrid and decentralized programs, using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. RESULTS: Overall, 69 (56.6%) facilities completed the survey, and respondents were lung cancer screening coordinators (39.1%), pulmonologists (33.3%), and oncologists (10.1%). Facilities most frequently self-identified as having a centralized (37.7%) program model, followed by identifying as having hybrid (30.4%) and decentralized (20.3%) programs. There was varying implementation of practices to support lung cancer screening, with hybrid and decentralized programs less likely to have lung cancer screening registries, lung cancer screening steering committees, or dedicated lung cancer screening coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is overlap between the components of various lung cancer screening program types, centralized programs more frequently implemented practices before the initial screening to support lung cancer screening. This work provides a path for future investigations to identify which lung cancer screening practices are effective to improve lung cancer screening outcomes, which could help inform implementation in settings with limited resources.

Implementation of a Standardized Template for Reporting of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPNs) are common. Up to 70% are not followed up according to current guidelines. Follow-up recommendations are based on the characteristics of the patient and the IPN. However, many IPNs are incompletely characterized in CT reports. Structured radiology reports have been shown to reduce missing information. We sought to improve IPN reporting by assessing the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a structured dictation template to increase the presence of six key nodule descriptors. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods, pre- and postimplementation assessment. A template was developed with a multidisciplinary group based on Fleischner Society guidelines. A standardized checklist was used to determine the presence of documented descriptors pre- and postimplementation for sequential radiology reports of patients with an IPN present (n = 400 pre-implementation and n = 400 postimplementation) on a CT performed at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System. We conducted qualitative interviews with radiologists (n = 4) and members of the lung nodule tracking team (n = 2) to elicit their experiences of the template implementation process. RESULTS: The proportion of radiology reports including all six elements increased from 12% to 47% (P < .001). Postimplementation, the template was used in 40% of interpretations involving lung nodules, 67% of follow-up scans, and 8% of initial identifications. Response to the template was overall positive. DISCUSSION: Use of a dictation template seems to be effective in increasing compliance with full IPN documentation, streamlining the follow-up process. Low utilization rates of the template for initial nodule identification is a limitation, which may be combated through clearer communication and advances in technology.

Does need for cognitive closure explain individual differences in lung cancer screening? A brief report.

The need for cognitive closure describes the extent to which a person, faced with a decision, prefers any answer in lieu of continued uncertainty. This construct may be relevant in lung cancer screening, which can both reduce and increase uncertainty. We examined whether individual differences in need for cognitive closure are associated with Veterans' completion of lung cancer screening using a self-administered survey (N = 361). We also assessed whether need for cognitive closure moderates an association between screening completion and lung cancer risk perception. Contrary to our main hypothesis, high need for cognitive closure Veterans were not more likely to complete lung cancer screening and need for cognitive closure did not have a moderating role.

Association of invitation to lung cancer screening and tobacco use outcomes in a VA demonstration project.

A potential unintended consequence of lung cancer screening (LCS) is an adverse effect on smoking behaviors. This has been difficult to assess in previous randomized clinical trials. Our goal was to determine whether cessation and relapse behaviors differ between Veterans directly invited (DI) to participate in LCS compared to usual care (UC). We conducted a longitudinal survey of tobacco use outcomes among Veterans (Minneapolis VA) from 2014 to 2015, randomized (2:1) to DI versus UC and stratified by baseline smoking status (current/former). Within the DI group, we explored differences between those who did and did not choose to undergo LCS. A total of 979 patients (n = 660 DI, n = 319 UC) returned the survey at a median of 484 days. Among current smokers (n = 488), smoking abstinence rates and cessation attempts did not differ between DI and UC groups. More baseline smokers in DI were non-daily smokers at follow-up compared to those in UC (25.3% vs 15.6%, OR 1.97 95%CI 1.15-3.36). A significant proportion of former smokers at baseline relapsed, with 17% overall indicating past 30-day smoking. This did not differ between arms. Of those invited to LCS, smoking outcomes did not significantly differ between those who chose to be screened (161/660) versus not. This randomized program evaluation of smoking behaviors in the context of invitation to LCS observed no adverse or beneficial effects on tobacco cessation or relapse among participants invited to LCS, or among those who completed screening. As LCS programs scale and spread nationally, effective cessation programs will be essential.

Initial results of a lung cancer screening demonstration project: a local program evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To describe participation rates, results, and lessons learned from a lung cancer screening (LCS) demonstration project. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study at 1 of 8 centers participating in a national Veterans Health Administration LCS demonstration project. METHODS: An electronic health record (EHR) algorithm and tobacco pack-year (TPY) information prompt identified patients potentially eligible for LCS. LCS invitation was planned to consist of shared decision-making materials, an invitation letter to call the LCS manager, a reminder letter, and an outreach phone call for nonresponders. The outreach call was subsequently dropped due to time constraints on the LCS manager. Lung nodules and incidental findings on LCS low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) were recorded in templated radiology reports and tracked with EHR notes. RESULTS: Of 6133 potentially eligible patients, we identified 1388 patients with eligible TPY information: 918 were invited for LCS and 178 (19%) completed LCS. LCS completion was more likely in patients in the mailing-plus-call outreach group (phase I) compared with the mail-only group (phase II) (22% vs 9%; P <.001). Among those completing an LDCT, 61% had lung nodules requiring follow-up: 43% of the nodules were less than 4 mm in diameter, 12 patients required further diagnostic evaluation, and 2 had lung malignancies. There were 179 incidental LDCT findings in 116 patients, and 20% were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Important considerations in LCS are accurate identification of eligible patients, balancing invitation approaches with resource constraints, and establishing standardized methods for tracking numerous small lung nodules and incidental findings detected by LDCT.

Effect of an Automated Tracking Registry on the Rate of Tracking Failure in Incidental Pulmonary Nodules.

OBJECTIVE: Following incidental lung nodules with interval CT scanning is an accepted method to detect early lung cancer, but delayed tracking or failure to track is reported in up to 40% of patients. METHODS: Our institution developed and implemented an automated lung nodule registry tracking system. This system uses a code at the time that a suspicious nodule is discovered to populate the registry. Suspicious nodules were defined as any nodule, solid or ground glass, <3 cm that the radiologist recorded as a potential malignancy or recommended for follow-up imaging. We exported the system to eight other Veterans Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs) with over 10,000 patients enrolled. We retrospectively reviewed 200 sequential CT scan reports containing incidental nodule(s) from two tertiary care university-affiliated VAMCs, both before and after the implementation of the registry tracking system. The primary outcome was the rate of tracking failure, defined as suspicious nodules that had no follow-up imaging or whose follow-up was delayed when compared with published guidelines. Secondary outcomes were predictors of tracking failure and reasons for tracking failure. RESULTS: After implementation of the registry tracking system in the two VAMCs, we found a significant decrease in tracking failure, from a preimplementation rate of 74% to a postimplementation rate of 10% (P < .001). We found that age, nodule size, number, and nodule characteristics were significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: The automated lung nodule registry tracking system can be exported to other health care facilities and significantly reduces the rate of tracking failure.

What factors do patients consider most important in making lung cancer screening decisions? Findings from a demonstration project conducted in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The National Lung Screening Trial recently reported that annual low-dose computed tomography screening is associated with decreased lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers. This study sought to identify the factors patients consider important in making lung cancer screening (LCS) decisions, and explore variations by patient characteristics and LCS participation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This observational survey study evaluated the Minneapolis VA LCS Clinical Demonstration Project in which LCS-eligible Veterans (N=1388) were randomized to either Direct LCS Invitation (mailed with decision aid, N=926) or Usual Care (provider referral, N=462). We surveyed participants three months post-randomization (response rate 44%) and report the proportion of respondents rating eight decision-making factors (benefits, harms, and neutral factors) as important by condition, patient characteristics, and LCS completion. RESULTS: Overall, the most important factor was personal risk of lung cancer and the least important factor was health risks from LCS. The reported importance varied by patient characteristics, including smoking status, health status, and education level. Overall, the potential harms of LCS were reported less important than the benefits or the neutral decision-making factors. Exposure to Direct LCS Invitation (with decision aid) increased Veterans' attention to specific decision-making factors; compared to Usual Care respondents, a larger proportion of Direct LCS Invitation respondents rated the chance of false-positive results, LCS knowledge, LCS convenience, and anxiety as important. Those completing LCS considered screening harms less important, with the exception of incidental findings. CONCLUSION: Decision tools influence Veterans' perceptions about LCS decision-making factors. As the factors important to LCS decision making vary by patient characteristics, targeted materials for specific subgroups may be warranted. Attention should be paid to how LCS incidental findings are communicated.

STOP-BANG questionnaire performance in a Veterans Affairs unattended sleep study program.

RATIONALE: There are no published data regarding use of the STOP-BANG sleep apnea questionnaire in populations referred to Veterans Affairs (VA) sleep facilities. If a particular STOP-BANG score cutpoint had high positive predictive value in this referral population, it could reduce the need for diagnostic sleep studies. METHODS: STOP-BANG questionnaires were prospectively administered to veterans undergoing unattended sleep studies at a single VA facility. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) of STOP-BANG scores for identifying a Respiratory Disturbance Index (RDI) greater than 15/hour. We also recalibrated the STOP-BANG score to our referral population, using logistic regression models. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,196 consecutive veterans undergoing unattended sleep studies, the mean STOP-BANG score was 5.7 ± 1.4, and 67% had an RDI greater than 15/hour. Sensitivities were excellent at lower STOP-BANG scores, but sharply decreased at scores of 6 and above. Specificity improved in a linear fashion with increasing scores. The ROC AUC was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.69) and recalibrated models improved the ROC AUC to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78). The highest STOP-BANG score of 8 was present in only 7.9% of the sample and had a positive predictive value of 85% (95% CI, 76-92%). CONCLUSIONS: The STOP-BANG questionnaire alone is insufficient to confirm the presence of significant sleep apnea. A maximal score of 8 did not have a high enough positive predictive value to forego confirmatory sleep testing.