» Articles » PMID: 38026274

Why is the Screening Rate in Lung Cancer Still Low? A Seven-country Analysis of the Factors Affecting Adoption

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2023 Nov 29
PMID 38026274
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Strong evidence of lung cancer screening's effectiveness in mortality reduction, as demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the US and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON), has prompted countries to implement formal lung cancer screening programs. However, adoption rates remain largely low. This study aims to understand how lung cancer screening programs are currently performing. It also identifies the barriers and enablers contributing to adoption of lung cancer screening across 10 case study countries: Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Poland, South Korea and the United States. Adoption rates vary significantly across studied countries. We find five main factors impacting adoption: (1) political prioritization of lung cancer (2) financial incentives/cost sharing and hidden ancillary costs (3) infrastructure to support provision of screening services (4) awareness around lung cancer screening and risk factors and (5) cultural views and stigma around lung cancer. Although these factors have application across the countries, the weighting of each factor on driving or hindering adoption varies by country. The five areas set out by this research should be factored into policy making and implementation to maximize effectiveness and outreach of lung cancer screening programs.

Citing Articles

Predictive performance of risk prediction models for lung cancer incidence in Western and Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Juang Y, Ang L, Seow W Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):4259.

PMID: 40038330 PMC: 11880538. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-83875-6.


Lung cancer screening in India: Preparing for the future using smart tools & biomarkers to identify highest risk individuals.

Ramnath N, Ganesan P, Penumadu P, Arenberg D, Bryant A Indian J Med Res. 2025; 160(6):561-569.

PMID: 39913511 PMC: 11801781. DOI: 10.25259/ijmr_118_24.


Economic evaluation of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening among high-risk individuals - evidence from Hungary based on the HUNCHEST-II study.

Rozsa P, Kerpel-Fronius A, Muranyi M, Rumszauer A, Merth G, Markoczy Z BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1537.

PMID: 39627793 PMC: 11616101. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11828-w.


Rethinking how mobile units can catalyze progress on lung cancer screening: a scoping review of what we have learned.

Karanth S, Divaker J, Blair M, Gray J, Hochhegger B, Kobetz E J Thorac Dis. 2024; 16(10):7143-7154.

PMID: 39552879 PMC: 11565335. DOI: 10.21037/jtd-24-846.


Non-small-cell lung cancer.

Hendriks L, Remon J, Faivre-Finn C, Garassino M, Heymach J, Kerr K Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2024; 10(1):71.

PMID: 39327441 DOI: 10.1038/s41572-024-00551-9.


References
1.
Hughes D, Chen J, Wallace A, Rajendra S, Santavicca S, Duszak Jr R . Comparison of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Use between Commercial, Medicare, and Medicare Advantage Enrollees. J Am Coll Radiol. 2023; 20(4):402-410. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.12.022. View

2.
Carter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Wernli K, Roth J, Buist D . A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening. Fam Pract. 2017; 34(2):239-244. PMC: 6279209. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw146. View

3.
He L, Yu H, Shi L, He Y, Geng J, Wei Y . Equity assessment of the distribution of CT and MRI scanners in China: a panel data analysis. Int J Equity Health. 2018; 17(1):157. PMC: 6173854. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-018-0869-y. View

4.
Zhao Z, Du L, Wang L, Wang Y, Yang Y, Dong H . Preferred Lung Cancer Screening Modalities in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(23). PMC: 8656503. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13236110. View

5.
Pham D, Bhandari S, Pinkston C, Oechsli M, Kloecker G . Lung Cancer Screening Registry Reveals Low-dose CT Screening Remains Heavily Underutilized. Clin Lung Cancer. 2020; 21(3):e206-e211. DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2019.09.002. View