Lung Cancer Risk in Suspicious Lung Nodules With Negative Positron Emission Tomography.

BACKGROUND: Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (LungRADS) Category 4 represents lung nodules with the highest likelihood of cancer. For LungRADS-4 lesions, if positron emission tomography (PET) is negative, no uniform guideline currently exists on subsequent follow-up, particularly whether the surveillance interval can be extended. We sought to investigate the incidence of cancer, our surveillance practice, and any clinical factors associated with cancer in this patient subset. METHODS: We retrospectively stratified LungRADS-4 patients screened at our institution from March 2015 to February 2019 into subgroups: PET positive, PET negative, and no PET performed. PET negativity was defined as the absence of a radiologist's suspicion or a maximum standardized uptake value at or below the mediastinal value. RESULTS: Of the 191 LungRADS-4 patients identified, 67 (35.1%) met the criteria for PET negativity. Cancer was diagnosed in 28.8% of the entire cohort (55/191), 77.8% of the PET-positive subgroup (35/45), 22.4% of the PET-negative subgroup (15/67), and 6.3% of the no PET subgroup (5/79). The most common follow-up modality after a negative PET was a computed tomography (47/67, 70.1%), with a median interval of 3.1 months. Clinical variables including nodule location/size, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, family history of lung cancer, pack-years, and number of years quit in former smokers were not significantly associated with greater cancer risk among the PET-negative subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: For LungRADS-4/PET-negative lesions the cancer risk remained high despite a lack of activity on PET. As such we believe the current surveillance practice of continuing to follow LungRADS-4/PET-negative patients as LungRADS-4 patients is appropriate.

Age, Race, and Income Are Associated With Lower Screening Rates at a Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: While lung cancer screening improves cancer-specific mortality and is recommended for high-risk patients, barriers to screening still exist. We sought to determine our institution's (an urban safety net hospital) screening rate and to identify socioeconomic barriers to lung cancer screening. METHODS: We identified 8935 smokers 55 to 80 years of age evaluated by a primary care physician between March 2015 and March 2017 at our institution. We randomly selected one-third of these (n = 2978) to review for eligibility using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for lung cancer screening. Using our institution's Lung Cancer Screening Program clinical tracking database, we identified patients who were screened from March 2015 to March 2017. We collected demographic information (race, primary language, education status, and median income) and evaluated possible associations with screening. RESULTS: Among our institution population, 99 patients meeting U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening criteria underwent screening computed tomography, whereas 516 eligible patients were not screened, making our institution's estimated screening rate 16.1%. Comparing the unscreened population with those who received screening at our institution, the unscreened population was significantly older (median age of screened patients was 63 years, of unscreened patients was 66 years; P < .001). African Americans had a lower screening rate (37.6% of the screened population and 47.5% of the unscreened population; P < .001). Unscreened patients had a lower annual household income. CONCLUSIONS: The lung cancer screening rate at our hospital is 16.1%. Unscreened patients were older, were more likely to be African American, and had a lower median income. These findings highlight possible screening barriers and potential areas for targeted strategies to decrease disparities in lung cancer screening.