Lung Cancer Screening Criteria and Cardiopulmonary Comorbidities

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening criteria should select candidates with minimal cardiopulmonary comorbidities who are fit for curative lung cancer resection. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 728 patients with lung cancer for screening eligibility using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria (n = 370). If ineligible for screening, they were further assessed for eligibility using the USPSTF 2021 (n = 121) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network group 2 (NCCN gp 2) (n = 155). Comparisons of cardiopulmonary comorbidities between patients selected by the different lung cancer screening criteria were performed. Excluding missing data, a similar comparison was done between USPSTF 2013 (n = 283) and PLCOm2012 (risk threshold ≥1.51%) (n = 118). RESULTS: Patients eligible for USPSTF 2021 and NCCN gp 2 had lower rates of airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity \u3c0.7) compared with those in USPSTF 2013 (55.4% and 56.8% versus 70.5%). Both USPSTF 2021 and NCCN gp 2 groups had less severe airflow obstruction; only 11.6% and 12.9% of patients, respectively, had percent-predicted FEV1 less than 50% versus 20.3% in the USPSTF 2013 group. Comparing USPSTF 2013 and PLCOm2012 revealed no significant differences in age or the rate of airflow obstruction (p = 0.06 and p = 0.09 respectively). Nevertheless, rates of percent-predicted FEV1 less than 50% and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide less than 50% were lower in the PLCOm2012 group compared with those in the USPSTF 2013 group (22.3% versus 10.2% and 32.6% versus 20.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF 2021 qualifies an additional group of screening candidates who are healthier with better lung reserve, translating to better surgical candidacy but potentially more overdiagnosis. The PLCOm2012, with its better accuracy in selecting patients at risk of cancer, selects an older group with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but with good lung reserve and potentially less overdiagnosis

The clinical implications of tests confirming COPD in subjects hospitalized with exacerbations

<p><b>Background</b>: The diagnosis of COPD in patients hospitalized for AECOPD can be confirmed by spirometry showing obstruction or radiographs showing emphysema. The evidence for COPD is sometimes absent or contradicts this diagnosis. The inaccurate attribution of the exacerbation to COPD can lead to suboptimal care and worse outcome.</p> <p><b>Objectives</b>: We determined if the presence of tests that confirm the diagnosis of COPD has any implications on the course of the hospitalization and readmission rate.</p> <p><b>Methods</b>: We selected subjects hospitalized between 2012 and 2014 for AECOPD. We divided them into four hierarchical, mutually exclusive groups based on the presence of tests that confirm the diagnosis of COPD: spirometry (COPD_SPIRO), radiology (COPD_RAD), clinical diagnosis (COPD_CLIN), and no COPD by spirometry (NotCOPD). We compared the presentation, hospital course, outcome, and readmission rate between the four groups.</p> <p><b>Results</b>: We identified 974 subjects: COPD_SPIRO 22%, COPD_RAD 24%, COPD_CLIN 46% and 7% NotCOPD. The vital signs, use of respiratory support, admission to the MICU, and length of stay were similar between the groups. The age, gender, BMI, presence of comorbidities, and readmission rate were different between the groups. The NotCOPD group had the highest BMI (38 kg/m²), comorbidities, and 30-day all-cause readmission (17%). Logistic regression showed that serum creatinine and presence of any comorbidity were the independent predictors of 30-day all-cause readmission.</p> <p><b>Conclusion</b>: COPD was confirmed by spirometry or radiographs in half of the subjects hospitalized for AECOPD. The presence of confirmation did not influence the hospital course. The presence of confirmation was associated with different readmission rate, but was accounted for by the presence of comorbidities.</p

Comparison Between the 2021 USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Criteria and Other Lung Cancer Screening Criteria for Racial Disparity in Eligibility

Importance: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) broadened its age and smoking pack-year requirement for lung cancer screening. Objectives: To compare the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening criteria with other lung cancer screening criteria and evaluate whether the sensitivity and specificity of these criteria differ by race. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study included 912 patients with lung cancer and 1457 controls without lung cancer enrolled in an epidemiology study (INHALE [Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology]) in the Detroit metropolitan area between May 15, 2012, and March 31, 2018. Patients with lung cancer and controls were 21 to 89 years of age; patients with lung cancer who were never smokers and controls who were never smokers were not included in these analyses. Statistical analysis was performed from August 31, 2020, to April 13, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study assessed whether patients with lung cancer and controls would have qualified for lung cancer screening using the 2013 USPSTF, 2021 USPSTF, and 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCOm2012) screening criteria. Sensitivity was defined as the percentage of patients with lung cancer who qualified for screening, while specificity was defined as the percentage of controls who did not qualify for lung cancer screening. Results: Participants included 912 patients with a lung cancer diagnosis (493 women [54%]; mean [SD] age, 63.7 [9.5] years) and 1457 control participants without lung cancer at enrollment (795 women [55%]; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [9.6] years). With the use of 2021 USPSTF criteria, 590 patients with lung cancer (65%) were eligible for screening compared with 619 patients (68%) per the PLCOm2012 criteria and 445 patients (49%) per the 2013 USPSTF criteria. With the use of 2013 USPSTF criteria, significantly more White patients than African American patients with lung cancer (324 of 625 [52%] vs 121 of 287 [42%]) would have been eligible for screening. This racial disparity was absent when using 2021 USPSTF criteria (408 of 625 [65%] White patients vs 182 of 287 [63%] African American patients) and PLCOm2012 criteria (427 of 625 [68%] White patients vs 192 of 287 [67%] African American patients). The 2013 USPSTF criteria excluded 950 control participants (65%), while the PLCOm2012 criteria excluded 843 control participants (58%), and the 2021 USPSTF criteria excluded 709 control participants (49%). The 2013 USPSTF criteria excluded fewer White control participants than African American control participants (514 of 838 [61%] vs 436 of 619 [70%]). This racial disparity is again absent when using 2021 USPSTF criteria (401 of 838 [48%] White patients vs 308 of 619 [50%] African American patients) and PLCOm2012 guidelines (475 of 838 [57%] White patients vs 368 of 619 [60%] African American patients). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that the USPSTF 2021 guideline changes improve on earlier, fixed screening criteria for lung cancer, broadening eligibility and reducing the racial disparity in access to screening