RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: People with HIV are at increased risk for lung cancer and multimorbidity, complicating the balance of risks and benefits of lung cancer screening. We previously adapted Decision Precision (screenlc.com) to guide shared decision-making for lung cancer screening in people with HIV. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does an HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improve shared decision-making regarding lung cancer screening in people with HIV as measured by knowledge, decisional conflict, and acceptability? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a single-arm pilot trial of the decision aid in 40 participants with HIV eligible for lung cancer screening. The decision aid included personalized screening recommendations and HIV-specific, 5-year risk estimates of lung cancer and all-cause mortality. Participants reviewed the decision aid at shared decision-making visits and completed previsit and postvisit surveys with measures of knowledge about lung cancer screening, acceptability, and decisional conflict. RESULTS: The 40 enrolled participants were a median 62 years old, 60% were currently smoking, and they had median 5-year risks of lung cancer and all-cause mortality of 2.0% (IQR, 1.4%-3.3%) and 4.1% (IQR, 3.3%-7.9%), respectively. Personalized recommendations included "Encourage Screening" for 53% of participants and "Preference Sensitive" recommendations for the remainder. Participants showed improvement in 2 validated knowledge measures with relative improvement of 60% (P < 0.001) on the 12-question lung cancer screening knowledge test and 27% (P < .001) on the 7-question lung cancer screening knowledge score, with significant improvement on questions regarding false-positive and false-negative findings, incidental findings, lung cancer-specific mortality benefit, and the possible harms of screening. Participants reported low scores on the decisional conflict scale (median score, 0; IQR, 0-5) and high acceptability. Ninety percent of patients ultimately underwent screening within 1 month of the visit. INTERPRETATION: This HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improved participants' knowledge of risks, benefits, and characteristics of screening with low decisional conflict and high acceptability. This decision aid can enable high-quality shared decision-making in this high-risk population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04682301; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either: 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention). INTERVENTION: A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: 389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible component of a multi-level intervention to address knowledge and follow-up for LCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05265897.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: People with HIV are at higher risk of lung cancer; however, there is limited research on attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to lung cancer screening in people with HIV. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives on lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers. METHODS: Surveys of people with HIV and HIV-care providers were complemented by qualitative focus groups and interviews designed to understand the determinants of lung cancer screening in people with HIV. Participants were recruited through an academic HIV clinic in Seattle, WA. Qualitative guides were developed by integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases checklist. Themes that emerged from thematic analyses of qualitative data were compared with surveys in joint displays. All study components were conducted between 2021 and 2022. RESULTS: Sixty-four people with HIV completed surveys, and 43 participated in focus groups. Eleven providers completed surveys, and 10 were interviewed for the study. Themes from joint displays show overall enthusiasm for lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers, particularly with a tailored and evidence-based approach. Facilitators in this population may include longstanding engagement with providers and health systems and an emphasis on survivorship through preventive healthcare interventions. People with HIV may also face barriers acknowledged by providers, including a high level of medical comorbidities and competing issues such as substance abuse, mental health concerns, and economic instability. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that people with HIV and their providers have overall enthusiasm toward screening. However, tailored interventions may be needed to overcome specific barriers, including complex decision making in the setting of medical comorbidity and patient competing issues.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Rationale: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is an effective tool to reduce mortality. However, barriers along the LCS care continuum, including delay in follow-up care, may reduce effectiveness. Objectives: The primary goals of this study were to evaluate delays in follow-up in patients with positive findings on LCS and to examine the impact of delay on lung cancer staging. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in a multisite LCS program with positive LCS findings, defined as Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Time to first follow-up was evaluated with delay considered >30 days beyond the standardized Lung-RADS recommendation. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the likelihood of delay by Lung-RADS category. Participants with resultant non-small cell lung cancer were evaluated to determine if delay in follow-up was associated with clinical upstaging. Results: Three hundred sixty-nine patients with 434 examinations had positive findings; 16% of findings were ultimately diagnosed as lung cancer. In 47% of positive examinations, there was a delay in follow-up (median delay, 104 d), representing 59% (210 d) of Lung-RADS 3 examinations, 35% (64 d) of Lung-RADS 4A examinations, and 40% (34 d) of Lung-RADS 4B/4X examinations (P < 0.001). In the 54 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer through LCS, delay was associated with increased likelihood of clinical upstaging (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study of delay in follow-up after positive LCS findings, we found that nearly half of patients had delays in follow-up and that delay was associated with clinical upstaging in patients whose positive findings represented lung cancer. Further targeted interventions to ensure timely follow-up after positive LCS examination are critical.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) nucleic acid tests (NATs) have potential to diagnose acute HIV infection and monitor persons taking pre-exposure prophylaxis or antiretroviral therapy (ART). POC NATs have not yet been evaluated in the US. METHODS: From June 2018-March 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of the Simple Amplification-Based Assay version II (SAMBA II) POC NAT. People with HIV (PWH) and persons testing for HIV were tested with the SAMBA II qualitative (Qual) whole blood (WB) test. From April-September 2019, the Qual test was used on persons who were ART-naive, and SAMBA II Semi-quantitative (Semi-Q) WB was used with ART-experienced PWH. Both were performed on unprocessed venipuncture (VP) and, when indicated by protocol, fingerstick (FS) WB and plasma. SAMBA results were compared with Abbott RealTime HIV-1 polymerase chain reaction results on plasma. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and concordance between tests. RESULTS: SAMBA was used in 330 visits among 280 participants: 202 (61.2%) visits from PWH, and 128 (38.8%) from HIV-negative persons. Qual test sensitivity with ART-naive participants was 91.4% [32/35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 77.6% to 97.0%] using VP WB and 100% (27/27, 95% CI: 87.5% to 100%) using FS WB. Specificity was 100% using both specimen types. Concordance between the gold standard and Semi-Q at 1000 copies/mL among PWH on ART was 97.7% (86/88, 95% CI: 92.1% to 99.4%) and 100% (30/30, 95% CI: 88.7% to 100%) using VP and FS WB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SAMBA II POC NATs showed high sensitivity, specificity, and concordance with the gold standard assay, indicating its potential use in diagnostics and monitoring. Future work will evaluate POC NAT implementation in the US.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Rationale: Adherence to follow-up lung cancer screening (LCS) in real-world settings is suboptimal. Patient understanding of screening results and anticipated follow-up may be crucial to adherence. Objectives: To determine patient factors associated with identification of follow-up recommendations as a measure of patient understanding of screening results after LCS, and to determine whether misidentification of follow-up is associated with lower adherence to recommendations. Methods: We performed a prospective study of patients in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS registry who underwent an initial LCS examination between June 2017 and September 2019. We mailed potential participants a survey after the initial LCS examination, with additional data abstracted from the electronic health record and LCS registry. Participants were asked to identify the timing and next step for their follow-up, with answers corresponding to the lung imaging reporting and data system (Lung-RADS) recommendations. We examined associations between incorrect identification of recommended follow-up and patient-level characteristics, self-perceived benefit/harm of LCS, LCS knowledge, Lung-RADS score, and patient-reported method of LCS results communication (letter, telephone, or in-person). We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with incorrect identification of recommendations and assessed incorrect identification of recommendations as a potential mechanism for poor adherence in a separate regression model. Results: One hundred eighty-eight participants completed the survey (response rate 44%); 47% misidentified their follow-up recommendation. Those with Lung-RADS scores ⩾3 had higher odds of incorrectly identifying follow-up recommendations than those with scores <3, as did those with lower educational attainment. However, there was no significant association between incorrect identification of follow-up and ultimate adherence to follow-up. Conclusions: Understanding of LCS follow-up appears to be poor, especially among those with lower education levels and positive findings. Among survey responders, incorrect identification of follow-up was not associated with poor adherence, suggesting that other factors, such as provider interventions, may be driving adherence behavior. These results can inform efforts to target improved patient education regarding follow-up for LCS.

Asunto(s)