Disparities in lung cancer screening utilization at two health systems in the Southeastern USA.

Purpose: Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening is effective for reducing lung cancer mortality. It is critical to understand the lung cancer screening practices for screen-eligible individuals living in Alabama and Georgia where lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. High lung cancer incidence and mortality rates are attributed to high smoking rates among underserved, low income, and rural populations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to define sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were screened for lung cancer at an Academic Medical Center (AMC) in Alabama and a Safety Net Hospital (SNH) in Georgia.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of screen-eligible patients was constructed using electronic health records between 2015 and 2020 seen at an Academic Medical Center (AMC) and a Safety Net Hospital (SNH) separately. Chi-square tests and Student t tests were used to compare screening uptake across patient demographic and clinical variables. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions determined significant predictors of lung cancer screening uptake.

Results: At the AMC, 67,355 were identified as eligible for LCS and 1,129 were screened. In bivariate analyses, there were several differences between those who were screened and those who were not screened. Screening status in the site at Alabama-those with active tobacco use are significantly more likely to be screened than former smokers (OR: 3.208, p < 0.01). For every 10-unit increase in distance, the odds of screening decreased by about 15% (OR: 0.848, p < 0.01). For every 10-year increase in age, the odds of screening decrease by about 30% (OR: 0.704, p < 0.01). Each additional comorbidity increases the odds of screening by about 7.5% (OR: 1.075, p < 0.01). Those with both private and public insurance have much higher odds of screening compared to those with only private insurance (OR: 5.403, p < 0.01). However, those with only public insurance have lower odds of screening compared to those with private insurance (OR: 0.393, p < 0.01). At the SNH-each additional comorbidity increased the odds of screening by about 11.9% (OR: 1.119, p = 0.01). Notably, those with public insurance have significantly higher odds of being screened compared to those with private insurance (OR: 2.566, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: The study provides evidence that LCS has not reached all subgroups and that additional targeted efforts are needed to increase lung cancer screening uptake. Furthermore, disparity was noticed between adults living closer to screening institutions and those who lived farther.