Faculty Bibliography

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

BACKGROUND:Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS:We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS:Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS:PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT:PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

BACKGROUND:The use of mapping to guide peripheral lung navigation (PLN) represents an advance in the management of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL). Software has been developed to virtually reconstruct computed tomography images into 3-dimensional airway maps and generate navigation pathways to target PPL. Despite this there remain significant gaps in understanding the factors associated with navigation success and failure including the cartographic performance characteristics of these software algorithms. This study was designed to determine whether differences exist when comparing PLN mapping platforms. METHODS:An observational direct comparison was performed to evaluate navigation planning software packages for the lung. The primary endpoint was distance from the terminal end of the virtual navigation pathway to the target PPL. Secondary endpoints included distal virtual and segmental airway generations built to the target and/or in each lung. RESULTS:Twenty-five patient chest computed tomography scans with 41 PPL were evaluated. Virtual airway and navigation pathway maps were generated for each scan/nodule across all platforms. Virtual navigation pathway comparison revealed differences in the distance from the terminal end of the navigation pathway to the target PPL (robotic bronchoscopy 9.4 mm vs. tip-tracked electromagnetic navigation 14.2 mm vs. catheter based electromagnetic navigation 17.2 mm, P=0.0005) and in the generation of complete distal airway maps. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Comparing PLN planning software revealed significant differences in the generation of virtual airway and navigation maps. These differences may play an unrecognized role in the accurate PLN and biopsy of PPL. Further prospective trials are needed to quantify the effect of the differences reported.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Previous studies of peripheral blood leukocyte mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) content and risk of lung cancer have yielded inconsistent results, and no studies have evaluated the association between mtDNA content and post-resection lung cancer outcomes. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Using a case-control study design, we evaluated the association between mtDNA content and risk of lung cancer in 465 cases and 378 controls. We also evaluated the association between mtDNA content and survival in 189 cases with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Relative mtDNA content was measured using a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay in peripheral blood genomic DNA. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, race, and smoking history. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:mtDNA content was lower in cases compared to controls, with medians of 1.26 [interquartile range (IQR), 0.98-1.70)] and 1.79 (IQR, 1.34-2.10; P<0.001), respectively. Compared to the quartile of subjects with the highest mtDNA content, there was significantly higher likelihood of lung cancer in the second lowest quartile (OR 3.44; 95% CI: 2.06-5.75) and the lowest quartile (OR 6.36; 95% CI: 3.86-10.47). In patients with resected NSCLC, there was no association between lower mtDNA content and recurrence-free survival (RFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89; 95% CI: 0.47-1.66] or overall survival (OS) (HR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.35-1.46). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Thus, our results counter previous studies and find that lower mtDNA content is associated with lung cancer risk. Our results suggest that mtDNA content could potentially serve as a risk biomarker, but is not associated with survival outcomes in NSCLC.

BACKGROUND:Web-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool). OBJECTIVE:This study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center. METHODS:Usability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial. RESULTS:In the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The availability of targeted therapies has transformed the management of advanced NSCLC; however, most patients do not undergo guideline-recommended tumor genotyping. The impact of plasma-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed simultaneously with diagnostic biopsy in suspected advanced NSCLC has largely been unexplored. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a prospective cohort study of patients with suspected advanced lung cancer on the basis of cross-sectional imaging results. Blood from the time of biopsy was sequenced using a commercially available 74-gene panel. The primary outcome measure was time to first-line systemic treatment compared with a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with advanced NSCLC with reflex tissue NGS. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Plasma-based NGS performed at the time of diagnostic biopsy in patients with suspected advanced NSCLC is associated with decreased time-to-treatment compared with usual care.

We analyzed mortality (all-cause and lung cancer-specific) and time to follow-up treatment in stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT) compared with ablation therapy and radiation therapy.From Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, patients diagnosed with stage I and II NSCLC between 2000 and 2015 were identified. Outcomes were mortality (overall and lung cancer-specific) and time to follow-up treatment. We analyzed mortality using Cox proportional hazard models. We used generalized linear model to assess time to follow-up treatment (PDT and ablation groups). Models were adjusted for inverse probability weighted propensity score.Of 495,441 NSCLC patients, 56 with stage I and II disease received PDT (mono or multi-modal), 477 received ablation (mono or multi-modal), and 14,178 received radiation therapy alone. None from PDT group had metastatic disease (M0) and 70% had no nodal involvement (N0). Compared with radiation therapy alone, PDT therapy was associated with lower hazard of overall (hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.39-0.80), and lung cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.43-0.97). Unadjusted mean time to follow-up treatment was 70days (standard deviation = 146) for PDT group and 67 days (standard deviation = 174) for ablation group. Compared with ablation, PDT was associated with an average increase of 125days to follow-up treatment (P = .11).Among stage I and II NSCLC patients, PDT was associated with improved survival, compared with radiation alone; and longer time to follow-up treatment compared with ablation. Currently, PDT is offered in various combinations with surgery and radiation. Larger studies can investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of these combinations.

Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021.