Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure. Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS. Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS. Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Rationale: Lung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation. Objectives: The objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics. Results: The 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital–based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening. Conclusions: Providers endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.

Lung transplant recipients have an increased risk of lung cancer that is poorly understood. Prior studies are largely descriptive and single‐center, and have not examined risk factors or outcomes in this population. This registry‐linkage study utilized matched transplant and cancer registry data from 17 US states/regions during 1987‐2012. We used standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare incidence with the general population, Poisson models to identify lung cancer risk factors, and Cox models to compare survival after diagnosis. Lung cancer risk was increased among lung recipients (SIR 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1‐5.5). Those with single lung transplant had 13‐fold (95% CI 11‐15) increased risk in the native lung. Native lung cancer risk factors included age, prior smoking, time since transplant, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Compared with cases in the general population, lung cancers in recipients were more frequently localized stage (P = .02) and treated surgically (P = .05). However, recipients had higher all‐cause (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90, 95% CI 1.52‐2.37) and cancer‐specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.28‐2.18). In conclusion, lung cancer risk is increased after lung transplant, especially in the native lung of single lung recipients. Traditional risk factors are associated with lung cancer in these patients. Lung cancer survival is worse among lung recipients despite earlier diagnosis.

The prevalence of emphysema is higher among HIV-infected (HIV+) individuals compared to HIV-uninfected persons. While greater tobacco use contributes, HIV-related effects on immunity likely confer additional risk. Low peripheral blood CD4+ to CD8+ T-lymphocyte (CD4/CD8) ratio may reflect chronic inflammation in HIV and may be a marker of chronic lung disease in this population. Therefore, we sought to determine whether the CD4/CD8 ratio was associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), particularly the emphysema subtype, in a cohort of HIV+ subjects. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 190 HIV+ subjects enrolled in the Examinations of HIV Associated Lung Emphysema (EXHALE) study. Subjects underwent baseline laboratory assessments, pulmonary function testing and chest computed tomography (CT) analyzed for emphysema severity and distribution. We determined the association between CD4/CD8 ratio and emphysema, and the association between CD4/CD8 ratio and pulmonary function markers of COPD. Mild or greater emphysema (>10% lung involvement) was present in 31% of subjects. Low CD4/CD8 ratio was associated with >10% emphysema in multivariable models, adjusting for risk factors including smoking, current and nadir CD4 count and HIV RNA level. Those with CD4/CD8 ratio 10% emphysema compared to those with a ratio >1.0 in fully adjusted models. A low CD4/CD8 ratio was also associated with reduced diffusion capacity (DLCO). A low CD4/CD8 ratio was associated with emphysema and low DLCO in HIV+ subjects, independent of other risk factors and clinical markers of HIV. The CD4/CD8 ratio may be a useful, clinically available, marker for risk of emphysema in HIV+ subjects in the antiretroviral therapy (ART) era.

Rationale: Despite a known mortality benefit, lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation has been unexpectedly slow. New programs face barriers to implementation, which may include lack of clinician engagement or beliefs that the intervention is not beneficial. Objectives: To evaluate diverse clinician perspectives on their views of LCS and their experience with LCS implementation and processes. Methods: We performed a qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS. Clinicians were drawn from three medical centers and represented diverse specialties and practice settings. All participants practiced at sites with formal LCS programs. We performed semistructured interviews with probes designed to elicit opinions of LCS, perceived evidence gaps, and recommendations for improvements. Transcribed interviews were iteratively reviewed and coded using directed content analysis. Results: Participants (N = 24) included LCS coordinators, pulmonologists, physician and nonphysician primary care providers (PCPs), a surgeon, and a radiologist. Most clinicians expressed their belief that the evidence supporting LCS was adequate to support clinical adoption, though most PCPs had little direct knowledge and based their decisions on local recommendations or endorsement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Many PCPs endorsed lack of knowledge of eligibility requirements and screening strategy (e.g., annual while eligible). Clinicians with more LCS knowledge, including several PCPs, identified a number of gaps in the current evidence that tempered enthusiasm, including unclear ideal screening interval, populations with high cancer risk that do not qualify under the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, indications to stop screening, and the role of serious comorbidities. Support for centralized programs and LCS coordinators was strong but not uniform. Clinicians were frustrated by time limitations during a patient encounter, costs to the patient, and issues with insurance coverage. Many gaps in informatics support were identified. Clinicians recommended working to improve informatics support, continuing to clarify clinician responsibilities, and working on increasing public awareness of LCS. Conclusions: Despite working within programs that have adopted many recommended care processes to support LCS, clinicians identified a number of issues in providing high-quality LCS. Many of these issues are best addressed by improved support of LCS within the electronic health record and continued education of staff and patients.