Real-World Lung Cancer CT Screening Performance, Smoking Behavior, and Adherence to Recommendations: Lung-RADS Category and Smoking Status Predict Adherence
- PMID: 32755178
- DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.23637
Real-World Lung Cancer CT Screening Performance, Smoking Behavior, and Adherence to Recommendations: Lung-RADS Category and Smoking Status Predict Adherence
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) has been shown to decrease mortality in persons with a significant smoking history. However, adherence in real-world LCS programs is significantly lower than in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess real-world LDCT LCS performance and factors predictive of adherence to LCS recommendations. METHODS. We retrospectively identified all persons who underwent at least two LCS examinations from 2014 to 2019. Patient demographics, smoking history and behavior changes, Lung-RADS category, PPV, NPV, and adherence to screening recommendations were recorded. Predictors of adherence were assessed via univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS. A total of 260 persons returned for follow-up LDCT (57.7% had two, 34.2% had three, 7.7% had four, and 0.4% had five LDCT examinations). A total of 43 of 260 (16.5%) had positive (Lung-RADS category 3 or above) scans, of which 27 of 260 persons (10.3%) were graded as Lung-RADS category 3, eight of 260 (3.1%) were category 4A, six of 260 (2.3%) were category 4B, and two of 260 (0.8%) were category 4X. Cancer was diagnosed in four of the 260 (three with lung cancer and one with metastatic melanoma). A total of 143 of 260 (55.0%) persons were current smokers at baseline and 121 of 260 (46.5%) were current smokers at the last round of LCS. LCS had sensitivity of 100.0%, specificity of 84.8%, PPV of 9.3%, and NPV of 100%. Overall adherence was 43.0% but increased progressively with higher Lung-RADS category (Lung-RADS 1: 33.2%; Lung-RADS 2: 46.3%; Lung-RADS 3: 53.8%; Lung-RADS 4A: 77.8%; Lung-RADS 4B: 83.3%; Lung-RADS 4X: 100%; p < .001). was also higher in former versus current smokers (50.0% vs 36.2%; p < .001). Being a former smoker and having a nodule that is Lung-RADS category 3 or greater were the only significant independent predictors of adherence. CONCLUSION. Our real-world LCS program showed very high sensitivity and NPV, but moderate specificity and very low PPV. Adherence to LCS recommendations increased with former versus current smokers and in those with positive (Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) LCS examinations. Adherence was less than 50.0% in current smokers and persons with negative (Lung-RADS categories 1 or 2) LCS examinations. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results offer a road map for targeted performance improvement by focusing on LCS subjects less likely to remain in the program, such as persons with negative LCS examinations and persons who continue to smoke, potentially improving LCS cost effectiveness and maximizing its societal benefits.
Keywords: CT; lung cancer; mass screening; patient adherence; smoking.
Similar articles
-
Lung-RADS Category 3 and 4 Nodules on Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Jul;219(1):55-65. doi: 10.2214/AJR.21.27180. Epub 2022 Jan 26. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022. PMID: 35080453
-
Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging.Chest. 2023 Jul;164(1):241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.02.003. Epub 2023 Feb 10. Chest. 2023. PMID: 36773935 Free PMC article.
-
Characterizing Lung-RADS category 4 lesions in a university lung cancer screening program.Lung Cancer. 2023 Dec;186:107420. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107420. Epub 2023 Nov 10. Lung Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37956610
-
The 10 Pillars of Lung Cancer Screening: Rationale and Logistics of a Lung Cancer Screening Program.Radiographics. 2015 Nov-Dec;35(7):1893-908. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015150079. Epub 2015 Oct 23. Radiographics. 2015. PMID: 26495797 Review.
-
Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2025102. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25102. JAMA Netw Open. 2020. PMID: 33196807 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
The Lithuanian Lung Cancer Screening Model: Results of a Pilot Study.Cancers (Basel). 2025 Jun 12;17(12):1956. doi: 10.3390/cancers17121956. Cancers (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40563607 Free PMC article.
-
Patient and nodule characteristics associated with adherence to lung cancer screening in a large integrated healthcare system.Sci Rep. 2025 Aug 9;15(1):29172. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-15053-1. Sci Rep. 2025. PMID: 40783586 Free PMC article.
-
Advancing Health Equity in Lung Cancer Screening and the Role of Humanomics.Thorac Surg Clin. 2023 Nov;33(4):365-373. doi: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2023.04.007. Epub 2023 May 25. Thorac Surg Clin. 2023. PMID: 37806739 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care After a Positive Lung Cancer Screening Examination.JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2240403. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.40403. JAMA Netw Open. 2022. PMID: 36326760 Free PMC article.
-
Understanding Patient and Clinical Stakeholder Perspectives to Improve Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening.Perm J. 2021 Jun 2;25:20.295. doi: 10.7812/TPP/20.295. Perm J. 2021. PMID: 35348073 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical