Efficacy of Interventions Intended to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background: Few eligible patients in the United States participate in lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).

Objective: What is the efficacy of interventions to increase LCS participation?

Design: We performed a systematic review following a prespecified protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021283984). In June/July of 2021, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Epistemonikos from 1946 to October 2021 to identify studies evaluating interventions to increase LCS participation.

Participants: Thirteen of 2761 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Of these, six had results available (five RCTs and one prospective observational study). The studies had predominantly White and non-Hispanic participants.

Main measures: An intention-to-treat analysis was used to calculate each study's relative risk (RR) to increase LCS. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model with a subgroup analysis for multi- versus single-step interventions. Risk of bias was evaluated with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I).

Key results: Overall, the proportion of screening LDCTs performed did not improve in the intervention group relative to the comparator group (RR [95% CI] of 1.30 [0.74, 2.29]), and meta-analysis indicated high heterogeneity of studies (I² = 91%). Subgroup analysis suggests that interventions targeting multiple barriers may increase LCS participation (RR [95% CI] for multistep vs single-step; 2.68 [1.77, 4.05] vs 0.99 [0.89, 1.10], P < 0.01). Quality assessment revealed that three of five RCTs showed some concerns or high risk of bias.

Conclusion: Evidence on efficacy of interventions to increase LCS participation is limited due to a small number of prospective studies performed in non-diverse populations with critical risk of bias. Further, overall, studied interventions did not improve lung cancer screening participation, though interventions targeting multiple barriers may have some benefit.