Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2240403.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.40403.

Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care After a Positive Lung Cancer Screening Examination

Affiliations

Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care After a Positive Lung Cancer Screening Examination

M Patricia Rivera et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Maximizing benefits of lung cancer screening requires timely follow-up after a positive screening test. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommends testing and follow-up timing based on the screening result.

Objective: To determine rates of and factors associated with recommended follow-up after a positive lung cancer screening examination by Lung-RADS category.

Design, setting, and participants: This prospective cohort study of lung cancer screening examinations performed from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2020, with follow-up through July 31, 2021, was conducted at 5 academic and community lung cancer screening sites in North Carolina. Participants included 685 adults with a positive screening examination, Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Statistical analysis was performed from December 2020 to March 2022.

Exposures: Individual age, race, sex, smoking exposure, year of lung cancer screening examination, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, referring clinician specialty, rural or urban residence.

Main outcomes and measures: Adherence, defined as receipt of recommended follow-up test or procedure after the positive screen per ACR Lung-RADS timeframes: 6 months for Lung-RADS 3 and 3 months for Lung-RADS 4A. For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, adherence was defined as follow-up care within 4 weeks, as ACR Lung-RADS does not specify a timeframe.

Results: Among the 685 individuals included in this study who underwent lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, 416 (60.7%) were aged at least 65 years, 123 (18.0%) were Black, 562 (82.0%) were White, and 352 (51.4%) were male. Overall adherence to recommended follow-up was 42.6% (292 of 685) and varied by Lung-RADS category: Lung-RADS 3 = 30.0% (109 of 363), Lung-RADS 4A = 49.5% (96 of 194), Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 68.0% (87 of 128). Extending the follow-up time increased adherence: Lung-RADS 3 = 68.6% (249 of 363) within 9 months, Lung-RADS 4A = 77.3% (150 of 194) within 5 months, and Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 80.5% (103 of 128) within 62 days. For Lung-RADS 3, recommended follow-up was less likely among those currently smoking vs those who quit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78). In Lung-RADS 4A, recommended follow-up was less likely in Black individuals vs White individuals (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, recommended follow-up was more likely in female individuals vs male individuals (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.09-7.28) and less likely in those currently smoking vs those who quit (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, adherence to recommended follow-up after a positive screening examination was low but improved among nodules with a higher suspicion of cancer and after extending the follow-up timeline. However, the association of extending the follow-up time of screen-detected nodules with outcomes at the population level, outside of a clinical trial, is unknown. These findings suggest that studies to understand why recommended follow-up is lower in Black individuals, male individuals, and individuals currently smoking are needed to develop strategies to improve adherence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

References

    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. ; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team . Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395-409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. . Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503-513. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911793 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goldstraw P, Chansky K, Crowley J, et al. ; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee, Advisory Boards, and Participating Institutions; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee Advisory Boards and Participating Institutions . The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (Eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(1):39-51. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2015.09.009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lam ACL, Aggarwal R, Cheung S, et al. . Predictors of participant nonadherence in lung cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lung Cancer. 2020;146:134-144. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.013 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lopez-Olivo MA, Maki KG, Choi NJ, et al. . Patient adherence to screening for lung cancer in the US: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2025102. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25102 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types