Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid.

OBJECTIVE: To present primary care physician (PCP) suggestions for design and implementation of a decision aid (DA) tool to support patient-provider shared decision-making on lung cancer screening (LCS). STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 PCPs at an academic medical center. METHODS: The deidentified transcripts were independently coded by 2 study interviewers and jointly reviewed every 5 interviews until we determined that data saturation had been achieved. We then identified themes in the data and selected illustrative quotes. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) make it brief and familiar (make the tool user-friendly and implement a similar format to other widely used DAs); (2) bring me to automation station (limit busywork; focus on the patient and on the decision); and (3) involve the patient (facilitate patient involvement in the DA with simple language, visual aids, and bullet-point takeaways). CONCLUSIONS: Findings contain concrete suggestions by PCPs to inform usable and acceptable LCS DA tool design and implementation. For an LCS DA to be most successful, PCPs emphasized that the tool must be easy to use and incorporate autopopulation functions to limit redundant patient charting.

The Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With Comorbidities.

Introduction: Individuals with a history of smoking and a high risk of lung cancer often have a high prevalence of smoking-related comorbidities. The presence of these comorbidities might alter the benefit-to-harm ratio of lung cancer screening by influencing the risk of complications, quality of life, and competing risks of death. Nevertheless, individuals with chronic diseases are underrepresented in screening clinical trials. In this study, we use microsimulation modeling to determine the impact of chronic diseases on lung cancer benefits and harms. Methods: We extended a validated lung cancer screening microsimulation model that comprehensively recapitulates an individual's lung cancer development, progression, detection, follow-up, treatment, and survival. We parameterized the model to reflect the impact of chronic diseases on complications from invasive testing, quality of life, and mortality in individuals in five-year age categories between the ages of 50 and 80 years. Outcomes included life-years (LY) gained per 100,000 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and history of stroke compared with screening-eligible individuals without comorbidities. Results: Among individuals between the ages of 50 and 54 years, we found that the presence of a comorbidity altered the LY gained from screening per 100,000 individuals depending on the comorbidity: 4296 LY with no comorbidities; 3462 LY, 3260 LY, 3031 LY, and 3257 LY with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and stroke, respectively. We observed greater reductions in LY gained in individuals with two comorbidities; we observed similar patterns for individuals between the ages of 55 and 59 years, 60 and 64 years, 65 and 69 years, 70 and 74 years, and 75 and 80 years. Conclusions: Comorbidities reduce LY gained from screening per 100,000 compared with no comorbidities, and our results can be used by clinicians when discussing the benefits and harms of screening in their patients with comorbidities.

Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

Examining the Trajectory of Health-Related Quality of Life among Coronavirus Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported a reduction in health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) among post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, there remains a gap in research examining the heterogeneity and determinants of HR-QoL trajectory in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe and identify factors explaining the variability in HR-QoL trajectories among a cohort of patients with history of COVID-19. DESIGN: A prospective study using data from a cohort of COVID-19 patients enrolled into a registry established at a health system in New York City. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were enrolled from July 2020 to June 2022, and completed a baseline evaluation and two follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months. METHODS: We assessed HR-QoL with the 29-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instrument, which was summarized into mental and physical health domains. We performed latent class growth and multinomial logistic regression to examine trajectories of HR-QoL and identify factors associated with specific trajectories. RESULTS: The study included 588 individuals with a median age of 52 years, 65% female, 54% White, 18% Black, and 18% Hispanic. We identified five physical health trajectories and four mental health trajectories. Female gender, having pre-existing hypertension, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and hospitalization for acute COVID-19 were independently associated with lower physical health. In addition, patients with increasing body mass index were more likely to experience lower physical health over time. Female gender, younger age, pre-existing asthma, arthritis and cardiovascular disease were associated with poor mental health. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant heterogeneity of HR-QoL after COVID-19, with women and patients with specific comorbidities at increased risk of lower HR-QoL. Implementation of targeted psychological and physical interventions is crucial for enhancing the quality of life of this patient population.

Greater executive dysfunction in patients post-COVID-19 compared to those not infected.

BACKGROUND: A number of patients post-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) report cognitive impairment (CI), even months after acute infection. We aimed to assess if COVID-19 is associated with increased incidence of CI in comparison to controls. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Mount Sinai Health System Post-COVID-19 Registry in New York City, a prospective cohort of patients post-COVID-19 ≥18 years of age and non-infected controls. CI was defined by scores ≥ 1.0 standard deviation below population norms, and was assessed using well-validated measures of attention, working memory, processing speed, executive functioning/cognitive flexibility, language, learning, and memory. Logistic regression models assessed odds for CI in each domain in patients post-COVID-19 vs. controls after adjusting for potential confounders. In exploratory analyses, we assessed odds for CI by site of acute COVID-19 care as a proxy for disease severity. FINDINGS: 417 patients post-COVID-19 and 151 controls (mean age 49 years, 63% female, 21% Black, 17% Latinx) were included. In adjusted analyses, patients were significantly more likely than controls to have CI in executive functioning (odds ratio [OR]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 4.67), particularly those treated in outpatient (OR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.02 to 4.82) and inpatient hospital (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 1.27 to 10.16) settings. There were no significant associations between CI in other domains and history of COVID-19 or site of acute care. INTERPRETATION: Patients post-COVID-19 have greater odds of executive dysfunction, suggesting that focused cognitive screening may be prudent, even in those with mild to moderate disease. Studies should explore the pathophysiology and potential treatments for CI in this population. FUNDING: This work was funded by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. METHODS: This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): Study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

Background. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. Methods. This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention ( LungTalk ) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. Discussion. This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. Trial Registration : The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Timely adherence to follow-up after high-risk lung cancer screenings.

OBJECTIVE: To achieve the lung cancer screening (LCS) mortality benefit in clinical trials, timely, real-world follow-up of abnormal test results is necessary. Presently, annual LCS rates are lower than in trials, and adherence to follow-up after suspicious findings has not been well studied. This study examined timely adherence to follow-up recommendations after positive low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings. METHODS: This retrospective study included individuals from two academic primary care practices in New York City who met United States Preventative Services Task Force LCS eligibility and had a positive LDCT scan between 2013 and 2020. They were recommended for shorter interval follow-up repeat computed tomography (CT), CT biopsy, or positron emission tomography/CT. Adherence was completion of the prescribed imaging by 15 days after the recommended 7-, 30-, and 90-day follow-up and by 30 days after the 180-day recommended follow-up. RESULTS: Among 106 individuals with a positive LDCT scan, 64 (60%) were adherent to follow-up recommendations. Adherence was 72%, 63%, and 42% for recommended follow-ups of 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. Being male was a predictor of a lower adherence rate. Among 23 individuals newly diagnosed with lung cancer after a positive LDCT scan, 83% were adherent to follow-up testing and 82% of cancers were Stage 1A or limited stage. CONCLUSIONS: There was variable adherence to the LCS follow-up recommendations despite positive screening CT, suggesting that even in a well-established screening program there may not be an efficient, systematic approach for follow-up. The delays in repeat testing potentially undermine the benefits of early detection.

Patient impressions of the impact of comorbidities on lung cancer screening benefits and harms: A qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To learn about the beliefs and preferences of lung cancer screening (LCS) among patients undergoing LCS decision making. Specifically, we investigated how their comorbidity influences their interest in screening. The goal was to inform shared-decision making discussions around the role of comorbidities and LCS. METHODS: We recruited English-speaking LCS-eligible individuals with comorbidities from general medicine outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in New York City. The interviewers followed a semi-structured interview guide and all interviews were professionally transcribed. Study investigators independently conducted thematic analysis of de-identified transcripts; after coding, investigators discussed and agreed upon identified themes (Jacobs et al., 1999 [3]). This study was IRB-approved. RESULTS: We achieved thematic saturation after 15 interviews. We identified the following themes: 1) Comorbidities were perceived as unrelated to LCS decision-making, 2) Lung cancer knowledge is valuable and worth any risks, 3) No matter what the guidelines or my providers say, the LCS decision is up to me. CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implications of these findings are that conversations where providers recommend against LCS may likely require time, patient education, and appreciation of the patient perspective.

Lung Cancer Screening and Stigma: Do Smoking-related Differences in Perceived Lung Cancer Stigma Emerge Prior to Diagnosis?

Background: Most lung cancer patients report experiencing stigma (i.e., devaluation based on one's lung cancer diagnosis), which is associated with adverse health outcomes. Lung cancer is stigmatized due to its robust association with smoking and the perception of the disease as self-inflicted. Purpose: Identifying sociodemographic and smoking-related correlates of perceived stigma among lung cancer screening-eligible adults (early in the cancer care trajectory) is needed to guide proactive psychosocial interventions to reduce stigma and improve health for patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer. Methods: A national sample of lung cancer screening-eligible adults (N = 515; 64.9% female) completed questionnaires on sociodemographic information, smoking-related characteristics, and perceived smoking-related lung cancer stigma. Zero-order and multivariate relationships between sociodemographic variables, smoking-related characteristics, and stigma were evaluated using Pearson's correlations, t-tests, ANOVAs, and multivariable regression. Results: The multivariable regression demonstrated that younger age (b = -0.05, p = .047) was associated significantly with higher stigma. Additionally, women (b = 0.63, p = .015), participants who reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (b = 1.07, p = .049), and those with a college degree or higher (all p ≤ .029) reported significantly higher stigma, compared to men, those who did not report Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and other education categories, respectively. None of the smoking-related characteristics were associated significantly with perceived stigma (all p > .12). Conclusions: Sociodemographic variables (rather than smoking-related characteristics) significantly and uniquely differentiated lung cancer screening-eligible adults' perception of lung cancer stigma. Smoking-related differences in lung cancer stigma may emerge following rather than prior to diagnosis.

The benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with major comorbidities: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated a survival benefit for adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy after resection of locoregional non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The relative benefits and harms and optimal approach to treatment for NSCLC patients who have major comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], coronary artery disease [CAD], and congestive heart failure [CHF]) are unclear, however. METHODS: We used a simulation model to run in-silico comparative trials of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in locoregional NSCLC in patients with comorbidities. The model estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by each treatment strategy stratified by age, comorbidity, and stage. The model was parameterized using outcomes and quality-of-life data from RCTs and primary analyses from large cancer databases. RESULTS: Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with clinically significant QALY gains for all patient age/stage combinations with COPD except for patients >80 years old with Stage IB and IIA cancers. For patients with CHF and Stage IB and IIA disease, adjuvant chemotherapy was not advantageous; in contrast, it was associated with QALY gains for more advanced stages for younger patients with CHF. For stages IIB and IIIA NSCLC, most patient groups benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, In general, patients with multiple comorbidities benefited less from adjuvant chemotherapy than those with single comorbidities and women with comorbidities in older age categories benefited more from adjuvant chemotherapy than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid patients may derive QALY gains from adjuvant chemotherapy after NSCLC surgery. These results help extend existing clinical trial data to specific unstudied, high-risk populations and may reduce the uncertainty regarding adjuvant chemotherapy use in these patients.

Impact of Comorbidities on Lung Cancer Screening Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: We used data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to examine the impact of self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus on diagnostic complications in lung cancer screening evaluation. METHODS: In our analysis, we included individuals from the usual care and intervention (annual chest x-ray) of the lung cancer screening trial with equal or greater than 55 years of age with a 20 pack-year smoking history who had undergone an invasive procedure. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to estimate the association of comorbidity on procedure complication. Our primary outcome was the incidence of major or moderate complications. RESULTS: Features associated with high-risk complication included older age (OR = 1.03 per year, P = .001), history of coronary artery disease (OR = 1.40, P = .03), history of diabetes mellitus (OR = 0.41, P < .001, current smoking status (OR = 1.46, P ≤ .001), surgical biopsy (OR = 7.39, P < .001), needle biopsy (OR = 1.94, P < .001), and other invasive procedure (OR = 1.58, P < .001). We did not find an associated with complication and history of stroke (OR = 0.84, P = .53) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.27, P = .06). CONCLUSION: Patient and procedure-level factors may alter the benefits of lung cancer screening. Data concerning individual risk factors and high-risk complications should therefore be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms to optimize clinical benefit and minimize harm. Further study and validation of the risk factors identified herein are warranted.

Immunotherapy Outcomes in Individuals With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Poor Performance Status.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in real-world practice typically have worse performance status (PS) compared with clinical trial patients, and the effectiveness of immunotherapy in this population in unknown. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of standard of care immunotherapy for the first-line treatment of stage IV patients with NSCLC with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS greater than or equal to 2. METHODS: We selected ECOG PS greater than or equal to 2 patients from real-world oncology data from a deidentified database and included them if they were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC and had documented Programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] expression greater than 0. Patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression of at least 50% treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy were compared with those who did not have any documented treatment. Patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression less than 50% treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy were compared with those treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy and those without documented treatment. RESULTS: In our propensity score-adjusted analysis, patients with ECOG PS of at least 2 and tumor PD-(L)1 expression of at least 50% treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy had statistically significantly better real-world overall survival compared with those without documented treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39, 95% confidence internal [CI] = 0.32 to 0.47). For patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression less than 50%, there was also a statistically significant real-world overall survival benefit for those who received treatment either with combination pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (adjusted HR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.46) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (adjusted HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.70) compared with patients receiving no documented treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among a highly representative sample of patients with advanced NSCLC and poor PS, our findings suggest that immunotherapy may provide an important survival benefit in individuals with high PD-(L)1-expressing tumors and in conjunction with chemotherapy in tumors with low PD-(L)1 expression.

Risk of Cardiovascular Toxicity According to Tumor Laterality Among Older Patients With Early Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The long-term risk of cardiovascular outcomes from either stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) plus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to treat early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is largely unknown. As continued adoption of SBRT accelerates, it is important to delineate unforeseen cardiovascular risks associated with treatment. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the long-term risk of cardiovascular outcomes for patients with early stage NSCLC treated with either SBRT or 3DCRT plus IMRT differ by tumor laterality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry linked to Medicare was analyzed to identify a sample of 3,256 patients (1,506 treated with SBRT and 1,750 treated with 3DCRT plus IMRT) with node-negative stage I or IIA NSCLC. Cardiovascular events were identified using diagnosis codes, and outcomes were compared between left- and right-sided tumors. We assumed that tumor laterality was random and that the radiation field for left-sided tumors likely would result in greater dose to cardiac tissues. Cox regression models were fit to quantify the association of laterality on outcomes. RESULTS: Patients were followed up for a median of 2 years. Those treated with SBRT showed no difference in hazard of any cardiovascular outcomes by tumor laterality, including the cardiovascular composite (hazard ratio [HR] comparing left- vs right-sided tumors, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.15). In contrast, patients treated with 3DCRT plus IMRT showed a greater risk of congestive heart failure (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48) and percutaneous coronary artery intervention (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12-4.47). INTERPRETATION: Patients with left- vs right-sided early stage NSCLC showed similar rates of cardiovascular events when treated with SBRT. However, these patients also showed higher rates of select cardiac events when they were treated with 3DCRT plus IMRT. This study provides evidence that SBRT may provide a safer option over 3DCRT plus IMRT for patients with left-sided early stage NSCLC and underscores the need for long-term follow-up for patients treated with radiation therapy.

The Landscape of US Lung Cancer Screening Services.

BACKGROUND: Low adoption of lung cancer screening is potentially caused by inadequate access to a comprehensive lung cancer screening registry (LCSR), currently a requirement for reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, variations in LCSR facilities have not been extensively studied. METHODS: We applied a hierarchical clustering method to a comprehensive database integrating state-level LCSR facility density, defined as the number of facilities per 100,000 at-risk persons, lung cancer outcomes including mortality and stage-specific incidence, and socioeconomic and behavioral factors. RESULTS: We found three distinct clusters of LCSR facilities roughly corresponding to the northern (cluster 1), southeastern (cluster 2), and southwestern (cluster 3) states. The southeastern states had the lowest total number of facilities (67 ± 44 in cluster 2, 74 ± 69 in cluster 1, 80 ± 100 in cluster 3), the slowest increase in facilities (23 ± 20 in cluster 2, 26 ± 28 in cluster 1, 27 ± 32 in cluster 3) between 2016 and 2018, and the highest lung cancer burden and current smokers. They ranked second in terms of facility density (2.9 ± 1.0 in cluster 3, 3.8 ± 1.3 in cluster 2, 6.3 ± 2.8 in cluster 1) and increase in facility density (1.1 ± 0.3 in cluster 3, 1.3 ± 0.7 in cluster 2, 2.5 ± 2.5 in cluster 1). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial state-level variability in LCSR facilities tied to lung cancer burden, socioeconomic characteristics, and behavioral characteristics. Given the known risk factors of lung cancer, correcting a suboptimal distribution of screening programs will likely lead to improved lung cancer outcomes.

Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions.

Overdiagnosis, is defined as the diagnosis of a condition that, if unrecognized, would not cause symptoms or harm a patient during his or her lifetime, and it is increasingly acknowledged as a consequence of screening for cancer and other conditions. Because preventive care is a crucial component of primary care, which is delivered to the broad population, overdiagnosis in primary care is an important problem from a public health perspective and has far reaching implications. The scope of overdiagnosis as a result of services delivered in primary care is unclear, though overdiagnosis of indolent breast, prostate, thyroid, and lung cancers is well described and overdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is also recognized. However, overdiagnosis is a known consequence of all screening and can be assumed to occur in many more clinical contexts. Overdiagnosis can harm patients by leading to overtreatment (with associated potential toxicities), diagnosis related anxiety or depression, and labeling, or through financial burden. Many entrenched factors facilitate overdiagnosis, including the growing use of advanced diagnostic technology, financial incentives, a medical culture that encourages greater use of tests and treatments, limitations in the evidence that obscure the understanding of diagnostic utility, use of non-beneficial screening tests, and the broadening of disease definitions. Efforts to reduce overdiagnosis are hindered by physicians' and patients' lack of awareness of the problem and by confusion about terminology, with overdiagnosis often conflated with related concepts. Clarity of terminology would facilitate physicians' understanding of the problem and the growth in evidence regarding its prevalence and downstream consequences in primary care. It is hoped that international coordination regarding diagnostic standards for disease definitions will also help minimize overdiagnosis in the future.

Assessing the extent of non-aggressive cancer in clinically detected stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis among clinically detected lung cancers likely consists of cases that are non-aggressive and slowly progressive and will never disseminate, cause symptoms or be a threat to a subject's survival, even if untreated. In this study, we estimate the prevalence of non-aggressive lung cancers from a large, population-based cancer registry. METHODS: We identified individuals ≥65 years with histologically confirmed, untreated stage I non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare registry. We estimated the rate of non-aggressive lung cancers by determining the point at which the cumulative lung cancer-specific survival curve no longer changed (ie, the slope approaches zero). At this point, there are no additional deaths due to progressive lung cancer observed among untreated patients after adjusting for deaths from competing risks (these long-term survivors can be considered 'non-aggressive cases). RESULTS: The overall rate of non-aggressive cancers among 2197 clinically detected cases of untreated stage I NSCLC was 2.4%, 95% CI: 1.0% to 3.8%. The rate of non-aggressive cancer was 1.9% (95% CI: 0.0% to 4.9%) for women and 2.4% (95% CI: 0.7% to 4.1%) for men (p=0.84). When stratifying by tumour size, non-aggressive cancer rates were 10.2% (95% CI: 0.0% to 29.3%), 2.1% (95% CI: 0.0% to 9.2%), 4.9% (95% CI: 0.0% to 10.3%), 1.8% (95% CI: 0.0% to 5.2%) and 0.0% (95% CI: 0.0% to 1.0%) for tumour sizes <15 mm, 15-24 mm, 25-34 mm, 35-44 mm and ≥45 mm, respectively. In comparison with the smallest tumour sizes (<15 mm), the rates of non-aggressive cancers were not statistically significantly different for tumour sizes 15-24 mm (p=0.36), 25-34 mm (p=0.57), 35-44 mm (p=0.38) and tumour sizes >45 mm (p=0.30). DISCUSSION: We found relatively low rates of non-aggressive cancers among clinically detected, stage I NSCLC regardless of sex or size. Our findings suggest that most clinically diagnosed early stage cancers should be treated with curative intent.