Patient Identification of Lung Cancer Screening Follow-Up Recommendations and the Association with Adherence

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.