Skip to main content
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2023 Jun 21;6(6):e2319172. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.19172

Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening Among Eligible Adults in 4 US States in 2021

Kristin G Maki 1,✉, Naomi Q P Tan 2, Iakovos Toumazis 2, Robert J Volk 2
PMCID: PMC10285576  PMID: 37342043

Abstract

This cross-sectional study estimates the prevalence of lung cancer screening among eligible adults in 2021 and examines factors associated with screening.

Introduction

Despite recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorsing lung cancer screening (LCS), data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) showed that 12.8% of eligible adults received a computed tomographic (CT) scan to check for lung cancer.1 Screening rates declined during the COVID-19 pandemic.2 Increasing LCS among eligible adults is a national priority.3 We estimated LCS using data from the 2021 BRFSS and examined factors associated with LCS.

Methods

The 2021 BRFSS4 data were collected from January 2021 through January 2022; 4 states (Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) are included the LCS module. We included adults aged 55 to 79 years with at least a 30-pack-year smoking history who currently smoked or quit within the past 15 years (eMethods in Supplement 1).5 We excluded respondents who reported a history of lung cancer. The study was exempt from institutional review board oversight and informed consent by the Common Rule given its use of publicly available data. We followed the STROBE reporting guideline.

We calculated the percentage and 95% CIs of eligible respondents who reported receiving a CT scan for LCS and conducted χ2 tests to assess statistically significant differences across demographic categories and subgroups based on lung cancer risk. We also examined factors associated with LCS using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression and reported odds ratios (ORs). We used the survey package in R, version 4.2.1 (The R Project) to account for the data design, with a 2-sided P < .05 considered significant.

Results

The weighted sample included 112 399 respondents who underwent LCS (mean [SD] age, 65.7 [5.8] years); 49.5% were males and 50.5% were females and 86.7% were White. Prevalence of LCS was 21.2%, an increase of 8.4% from 2019.1 Respondents who underwent LCS reported a high pack-year smoking history (mean [SD], 57.3 [49.6] pack-years; 95% CI, 50.8-63.8 pack-years). The mean (SD) time since quitting was 6.9 (4.6) years (95% CI, 5.8-8.0 years) (Table 1). Of respondents who underwent LCS, 4.5% (95 CI, −4.5% to 13.5%) had no health insurance and 27.7% (95% CI, 16.0%-39.5%) reported poor health.

Table 1. Demographic and Lung Cancer Risk Factors Associated With LCS Eligibility and Completion of Screening.

Characteristic Respondents eligible for LCS Respondents screened for LCS P valuea
Weighted No. Weighted % (95% CI) Weighted No. Weighted % within group (95% CI)
Eligible for LCS January 2021-January 2022
Not screened 418 393 78.8 (75.1 to 82.5) NA NA <.001
Screened 112 399 21.2 (17.5 to 24.9) 112 399 21.2 (17.5 to 24.9)
State
Maine 52 002 9.5 (8.2 to 10.8) 10 221 20.0 (15.4 to 24.5) .21
Michigan 299 670 55.0 (50.4 to 59.5) 67 200 22.6 (17.2 to 28.0)
New Jersey 169 728 31.1 (26.4 to 35.8) 27 831 17.5 (10.9 to 24.1)
Rhode Island 23 913 4.4 (3.5 to 5.2) 7148 30.3 (21.8 to 38.9)
Demographic characteristics
Sex
Male 290 460 53.3 (48.7 to 57.9) 55 618 19.9 (15.1 to 24.6) .46
Female 254 853 46.7 (42.1 to 51.3) 56 781 22.6 (17.0 to 28.3)
Race and ethnicityb
Black 24 247 4.6 (2.4 to 6.8) 3912 16.1 (2.2 to 30.0) .09
Hispanic 15 089 2.9 (1.2 to 4.5) 2716 18.0 (−0.3 to 36.4)
Multiracial 3087 0.6 (0.3 to 0.9) 510 16.6 (−5.1 to 38.3)
White 467 654 89.1 (85.9 to 92.4) 95 286 21.0 (17.3% to 24.7)
Other 14 516 2.8 (0.7 to 4.8) 7515 52.8 (16.0 to 89.5)
Educational attainment
Less than high school diploma 84 366 15.5 (11.6 to 19.3) 17 493 20.7 (9.9 to 31.5) .33
High school diploma or GED 229 878 42.2 (37.5 to 46.8) 40 113 17.7 (11.9 to 23.4)
Some college or technical school 172 585 31.7 (27.3 to 36.0) 39 296 24.1 (17.7 to 30.5)
4 y college or more 58 118 10.7 (8.6 to 12.7) 15 131 27.0 (18.6 to 35.3)
Annual household income, $
<25 000 113 054 24.6 (20.4 to 28.9) 22 728 20.5 (13.3 to 27.6) .29
25 000-49 999 153 352 33.4 (28.4 to 38.4) 37 778 26.3 (17.6 to 35.0)
50 000-74 999 76 767 16.7 (12.9 to 20.6) 13 764 18.1 (8.7 to 27.4)
75 000-99 999 60 784 13.3 (9.6 to 16.9) 8420 14.2 (6.4 to 22.0)
≥100 000 54 730 11.9 (8.7 to 15.1) 14 589 26.7 (15.1 to 38.2)
Access to medical care
Health insurance coverage
Private 169 764 32.1 (27.8 to 36.4) 29 753 17.6 (12.0 to 23.1) .07
Public 345 601 65.4 (60.9 to 69.8) 77 794 23.5 (18.5 to 28.4)
No insurance 13 457 2.5 (0.8 to 4.3) 604 4.5 (−4.5 to 13.5)
PHP
Does not have a PHP 38 274 7.0 (4.4 to 9.7) 2920 7.6 (0.7 to 14.6) .01
Has a PHP 505 061 93.0 (90.3 to 95.6) 108 904 22.2 (18.3 to 26.1)
Delay of medical care due to cost (past 12 mo)
Has not delayed care 516 621 94.8 (93.0 to 96.7) 104 510 20.8 (17.0 to 24.6) .40
Has delayed care 28 056 5.2 (3.3 to 7.0) 7800 27.8 (10.7 to 44.9)
General health status
Excellent 46 643 8.6 (5.8 to 11.3) 4915 10.5 (2.5 to 18.6) .10
Very good 122 497 22.5 (18.6 to 26.4) 32 151 26.9 (16.8 to 36.9)
Good 194 795 35.8 (31.4 to 40.2) 34 796 18.0 (13.0 to 23.0)
Fair 121 719 22.4 (18.3 to 26.5) 24 038 21.3 (14.1 to 28.6)
Poor 57 904 10.7 (7.9 to 13.4) 15 861 27.7 (16.0 to 39.5)
Lung cancer risk factors
Age, y
55-64 295 730 54.2 (49.6 to 58.8) 47 725 16.4 (11.5 to 21.2) .001
65-77 233 274 42.8 (38.2 to 47.4) 63 511 28.5 (22.6 to 34.4)
78-79c 16 308 3.0 (1.4 to 4.5) 1162 7.2 (−1.0 to 15.4)
Smoking status
Former 248 020 45.5 (40.9 to 50.1) 61 576 25.3 (20.0 to 30.5) .05
Current 297 293 54.5 (49.9 to 59.1) 50 823 17.7 (12.5 to 22.9)
Smoking history, pack-years
30-39 171 157 31.4 (27.1 to 35.7) 30,22 18.0 (11.7 to 24.3) .20
40-49 179 140 32.9 (28.7 to 37.0) 34 085 19.2 (13.6 to 24.8)
50-59 90 560 16.6 (12.6 to 20.7) 24 412 29.8 (17.6 to 42.0)
≥60 104 456 19.2 (15.6 to 22.7) 23 674 22.9 (15.4 to 30.3)
Years since quitting smokingd
<5 73 540 29.7 (24.7 to 35.0) 20 600 28.8 (19.4 to 38.2) .17
5-10 92 250 37.2 (31.7 to 42.9) 26 379 28.9 (19.8 to 38.0)
11-15 82 231 33.2 (27.7 to 38.9) 14 598 18.0 (9.5 to 26.5)

Abbreviations: GED, General Education Development; LCS, lung cancer screening; NA, not applicable; PHP, primary health professional.

a

All P values are from adjusted Wald χ2 tests.

b

Race and ethnicity are reported as collected within the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. This information was included as a variable because of disparities in LCS and outcomes. The other category includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or race not included in the surveillance system.

c

Respondent age older than 80 years is collapsed within the data set; thus, we limited the sample to respondents 79 years or younger.

d

Only includes respondents who reported not smoking currently.

Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analysis (Table 2) showed a higher likelihood of LCS for respondents in Rhode Island compared with Maine (OR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.05-3.67]; P = .03). Compared with White respondents, the likelihood of LCS was higher for those who self-reported belonging to racial and ethnic groups other than White, Black, Hispanic, or multiracial (OR, 8.89 [95% CI, 1.81-43.71]; P = .01). Respondents who reported having a primary health professional (PHP) had a higher likelihood of LCS compared with those without a PHP (OR, 5.62 [95% CI, 1.19-26.49]; P = .03). Compared with respondents aged 65 to 77 years, the likelihood of obtaining LCS was lower for those aged 55 to 64 years (OR, 0.43 [95% CI. 0.23-0.81]; P = .01) and those aged 78 to 79 years (OR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.04-0.80]; P = .02).

Table 2. Factors Associated With Obtaining LCS Among Eligible Individuals.

Characteristic OR (95% CI) Pseudo R2 P value
State
Intercept 0.06 (0.01-0.40) 0.02 .001
Maine 1 [Reference] NA
Michigan 1.35 (0.82-2.21) .24
New Jersey 1.02 (0.52-2.03) .95
Rhode Island 1.96 (1.05-3.67) .03
Demographic characteristics
Sex
Male 1 [Reference] 0.07 NA
Female 0.96 (0.58-1.59) .87
Race and ethnicitya
White 1 [Reference] NA
Black 0.83 (0.23-2.99) .78
Hispanic 0.79 (0.15-4.03) .77
Multiracial 0.73 (0.07-7.33) .79
Other 8.89 (1.81-43.71) .01
Educational attainment
4 y college or more 1 [Reference] NA
Less than high school diploma 1.58 (0.52-4.80) .42
High school diploma or GED 1.11 (0.56-2.23) .76
Some college or technical school 1.61 (0.82-3.16) .16
Annual household income, $
100 000 or more 1 [Reference] NA
<25 000 0.47 (0.18-1.27) .14
25 000-49 999 0.77 (0.33-1.83) .56
50 000-74 999 0.48 (0.19-1.23) .13
75 000-99 999 0.45 (0.18-1.12) .09
Access to medical care
Health insurance coverage
Private 1 [Reference] 0.10 NA
Public 0.81 (0.42-1.56) .53
No insurance 0.69 (0.06-8.08) .77
PHP
Does not have PHP 1 [Reference] NA
Has PHP 5.62 (1.19-26.49) .03
Delay of medical care due to cost
Has not delayed care 1 [Reference] NA
Has delayed care 1.64 (0.52-5.18) .40
General health status
Excellent 1 [Reference] 0.12 NA
Very good 2.51 (0.81-7.77) .11
Good 1.67 (0.57-4.92) .35
Fair 2.60 (0.85-7.93) .09
Poor 2.88 (0.85-9.77) .09
Lung cancer risk factors
Age, y 0.17
65-77 1 [Reference] NA
55-64 0.43 (0.23-0.81) .01
78-79b 0.17 (0.04-0.80) .02
Smoking status
Former 1 [Reference] NA
Current 0.61 (0.37-1.00) .05
Smoking history, pack-years
30-39 1 [Reference] NA
40-49 0.84 (0.43-1.61) .59
50-59 1.08 (0.48-2.40) .86
≥60 1.03 (0.50-2.10) .94

Abbreviations: GED, General Education Development; NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; PHP, primary health professional.

a

Race and ethnicity are reported as collected within the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. This information was included as a variable because of disparities in LCS and outcomes. The other category includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or race not included in the surveillance system.

b

Respondent age older than 80 years is collapsed within the data set; therefore, we limited the sample to respondents 79 years or younger.

Discussion

The prevalence of LCS in 2021 rebounded to higher levels than in 2019. However, LCS rates remain lower than other population-level cancer screening programs.5 Consistent with prior studies, LCS uptake varied between states. Having a PHP was associated with higher likelihood of LCS, and our findings highlight the potential importance of Medicare coverage for LCS. Limitations of this analysis include use of self-reported data that were collected in only 4 states.

Disparities in LCS uptake among eligible adults remain and will likely continue with the updated USPSTF recommendation increases the number of Black adults who are eligible for LCS.5 Research to identify facilitators for LCS among persons who currently smoke is needed, including a focus on the role of stigma as a barrier to screening.5,6 Finally, the high percentage of LCS in persons who reported poor health is concerning as many may not be healthy enough for treatment of lung cancer.

Supplement 1.

eMethods.

eReferences

Supplement 2.

Data Sharing Statement

References

  • 1.Liu Y, Pan IE, Tak HJ, Vlahos I, Volk R, Shih YCT. Assessment of uptake appropriateness of computed tomography for lung cancer screening according to patients meeting eligibility criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(11):e2243163-e2243163. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fedewa SA, Bandi P, Smith RA, Silvestri GA, Jemal A. Lung cancer screening rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chest. 2022;161(2):586-589. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion . Proposed Objectives for Inclusion in Healthy People 2030. Leading Health Indicators 2030: Advancing Health, Equity, and Well-Being. National Academies Press; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data and documentation. Updated September 30, 2021. Accessed January 23, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/data_documentation/index.htm
  • 5.Melzer AC, Wilt TJ. Expanded access to lung cancer screening—implementing wisely to optimize health. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e210275-e210275. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hamann HA, Ver Hoeve ES, Carter-Harris L, Studts JL, Ostroff JS. Multilevel opportunities to address lung cancer stigma across the cancer control continuum. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(8):1062-1075. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.05.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement 1.

eMethods.

eReferences

Supplement 2.

Data Sharing Statement


Articles from JAMA Network Open are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES