Evaluating Efficiency and Adherence in Asian Lung Cancer Screening: Comparing Self-paid and Clinical Study Approaches in Taiwan.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess how different screening methods, specifically self-paid screening versus participation in clinical studies, affect screening efficiency and adherence in a real-world Asian lung cancer screening population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study collected 4166 participants from our hospital imaging database who underwent baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) between January 2014 and August 2021. Adherence status was determined by counting CT scans, with one check indicating non-adherence and two or more checks indicating adherence. The primary objective was to investigate adherence to LDCT follow-up schedules among individuals with baseline pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) based on different screening settings and to evaluate adherence status and CT follow-up clinical profiles.

RESULTS

Of the 4166 participants in the study, 3619 in the self-paid group and 547 in the clinical study group were men, with an average follow-up period of 4.5 years. Significant differences were observed in the proportions of Lung-RADS 4 lesions, subsolid nodules, and pure GGN lesions between the self-paid and clinical trial groups. A significant difference was found in adherence rates between the self-paid screening group (60.5%) and the clinical study group (84.8%) (p < 0.001). Adherence status rates significantly increased with larger GGN sizes across categories (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that age (odds ratio [OR], 1.025; p = 0.012), smoking habits (OR, 1.744; p = 0.036), and clinical study screening type (OR, 3.097; p < 0.001) significantly influenced the adherence status.

CONCLUSION

The disparities in Asian lung cancer screening emphasize the need for increased efficacy, public awareness, and culturally sensitive approaches to mitigate overdiagnosis and enhance adherence among self-paying groups.