Burden of Comorbid Conditions Among Individuals Screened for Lung Cancer.

IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Dejana Braithwaite, Shama Karanth, Christopher G Slatore, Jae Jeong Yang, Martin Tammemagi, Michael K Gould, Gerard A Silvestri
{"title":"Burden of Comorbid Conditions Among Individuals Screened for Lung Cancer.","authors":"Dejana Braithwaite, Shama Karanth, Christopher G Slatore, Jae Jeong Yang, Martin Tammemagi, Michael K Gould, Gerard A Silvestri","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality in trials that included relatively younger, healthier, and predominantly White populations. The comorbidity profiles among patients undergoing lung cancer screening in practice settings are poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the comorbidity profiles of patients in the Personalized Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) cohort as a clinical setting vs the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants in a clinical trial setting.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This multicenter cohort study was conducted across 3 health care systems in California, Florida, and South Carolina and included patients who underwent LDCT lung cancer screening between 2016 and 2021. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Receipt of the LDCT scan identified through Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Detailed comorbidity data, measures of pulmonary function, and study data abstracted from electronic health records and institutional, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), and state registries were compared with self-reported comorbid conditions of participants in the LDCT arm of the NLST.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PLuS cohort (n = 31 795) included 49.0% participants aged 65 years or older vs 26.6% in the NLST cohort (n = 26 723); 23.3% were individuals of racial and ethnic minority groups in the PLuS cohort compared with 8.5% in the NLST. The prevalence of comorbidity was substantially higher in the PLuS cohort than the NLST group, particularly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (32.7% vs 17.5%), diabetes (24.6% vs 9.7%), and heart disease (15.9% vs 12.9%). Among those in the PLuS cohort, 19.3% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 4 or higher, 18.0% had a frailty index greater than 0.20, 16.9% had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV-1) lower than 50% of predicted, and almost 5% had an ejection fraction lower than 40%. The prevalence of multimorbidity and frailty was especially high among those in the 75 years or older age group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This study found that the PLuS cohort members were older, had greater illness severity, and more racially and ethnically diverse than the NLST participants. Older patients and those with consequential comorbidity likely had different risk-benefit profiles, which may have affected screening outcomes. The high prevalence of multimorbidity, frailty, and impaired cardiopulmonary function in the PLuS cohort suggests that the balance of benefits and harms observed in the NLST group may not translate to the clinical setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 2","pages":"e245581"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11846005/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Health Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5581","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality in trials that included relatively younger, healthier, and predominantly White populations. The comorbidity profiles among patients undergoing lung cancer screening in practice settings are poorly understood.

Objective: To evaluate the comorbidity profiles of patients in the Personalized Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) cohort as a clinical setting vs the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants in a clinical trial setting.

Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter cohort study was conducted across 3 health care systems in California, Florida, and South Carolina and included patients who underwent LDCT lung cancer screening between 2016 and 2021. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021.

Exposures: Receipt of the LDCT scan identified through Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes.

Main outcomes and measures: Detailed comorbidity data, measures of pulmonary function, and study data abstracted from electronic health records and institutional, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), and state registries were compared with self-reported comorbid conditions of participants in the LDCT arm of the NLST.

Results: The PLuS cohort (n = 31 795) included 49.0% participants aged 65 years or older vs 26.6% in the NLST cohort (n = 26 723); 23.3% were individuals of racial and ethnic minority groups in the PLuS cohort compared with 8.5% in the NLST. The prevalence of comorbidity was substantially higher in the PLuS cohort than the NLST group, particularly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (32.7% vs 17.5%), diabetes (24.6% vs 9.7%), and heart disease (15.9% vs 12.9%). Among those in the PLuS cohort, 19.3% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 4 or higher, 18.0% had a frailty index greater than 0.20, 16.9% had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV-1) lower than 50% of predicted, and almost 5% had an ejection fraction lower than 40%. The prevalence of multimorbidity and frailty was especially high among those in the 75 years or older age group.

Conclusions and relevance: This study found that the PLuS cohort members were older, had greater illness severity, and more racially and ethnically diverse than the NLST participants. Older patients and those with consequential comorbidity likely had different risk-benefit profiles, which may have affected screening outcomes. The high prevalence of multimorbidity, frailty, and impaired cardiopulmonary function in the PLuS cohort suggests that the balance of benefits and harms observed in the NLST group may not translate to the clinical setting.

筛查肺癌个体的合并症负担
重要性:低剂量计算机断层扫描(LDCT)筛查肺癌已被证明可以降低肺癌死亡率,试验对象包括相对年轻、健康且以白人为主的人群。在实践设置中接受肺癌筛查的患者的合并症概况了解甚少。目的:评估个性化肺癌筛查(PLuS)队列患者与国家肺筛查试验(NLST)患者在临床试验中的合并症概况。设计、环境和参与者:这项多中心队列研究在加利福尼亚州、佛罗里达州和南卡罗来纳州的3个医疗保健系统中进行,包括2016年至2021年间接受LDCT肺癌筛查的患者。数据分析时间为2016年1月1日至2021年12月31日。暴露:收到通过当前程序术语和医疗保健通用程序编码系统代码识别的LDCT扫描。主要结果和测量:详细的合并症数据、肺功能测量和从电子健康记录和机构、监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)以及州登记处提取的研究数据与NLST LDCT组参与者自我报告的合并症进行比较。结果:PLuS队列(n = 31 795)包括49.0%的65岁及以上的参与者,NLST队列(n = 26 723)为26.6%;在PLuS队列中,23.3%是种族和少数民族个体,而在NLST中,这一比例为8.5%。PLuS组的合并症发生率明显高于NLST组,特别是慢性阻塞性肺疾病(32.7% vs 17.5%)、糖尿病(24.6% vs 9.7%)和心脏病(15.9% vs 12.9%)。在PLuS队列中,19.3%的患者Charlson共病指数评分为4或更高,18.0%的患者虚弱指数大于0.20,16.9%的患者1秒用力呼气量(FEV-1)低于预期的50%,近5%的患者射血分数低于40%。多病和虚弱的患病率在75岁及以上年龄组中尤其高。结论和相关性:本研究发现,与NLST参与者相比,PLuS队列成员年龄更大,疾病严重程度更高,种族和民族更多样化。老年患者和那些随之而来的合并症患者可能有不同的风险-收益概况,这可能会影响筛查结果。PLuS队列中多病、虚弱和心肺功能受损的高患病率表明,在NLST组中观察到的利弊平衡可能无法转化为临床环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
7.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA Health Forum is an international, peer-reviewed, online, open access journal that addresses health policy and strategies affecting medicine, health, and health care. The journal publishes original research, evidence-based reports, and opinion about national and global health policy. It covers innovative approaches to health care delivery and health care economics, access, quality, safety, equity, and reform. In addition to publishing articles, JAMA Health Forum also features commentary from health policy leaders on the JAMA Forum. It covers news briefs on major reports released by government agencies, foundations, health policy think tanks, and other policy-focused organizations. JAMA Health Forum is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. The journal presents curated health policy content from across the JAMA Network, including journals such as JAMA and JAMA Internal Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信