Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Correctional Health Care logoLink to Journal of Correctional Health Care
. 2025 Feb 14;31(1):62–69. doi: 10.1089/jchc.24.06.0046

Lung Cancer Screening in the Incarcerated Population Through a Community Imaging Partnership

Terrance Healey 1, Gabriel Dayanim 2, Nicholas Streltzov 1, Kimberly Kane 3, Christopher Manz 4, Saengnapha Williams 3, Grayson L Baird 1, Justin Berk 5,*
PMCID: PMC12054697  PMID: 39752180

Abstract

Limited data exist on cancer screening in carceral facilities. This study evaluates the feasibility and outcomes of a population-based lung cancer screening initiative in a carceral setting. This is a retrospective review of a lung cancer screening event at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. Sentenced individuals meeting U.S. Preventive Services Task Force age criteria for lung cancer screening were mailed a letter asking about their smoking history. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans were offered to individuals who responded and met the criteria. Retrospective analyses examined patients’ LDCT scoring using the American College of Radiology’s Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS v1.1). Among more than 2,000 incarcerated individuals, 282 met the age criteria and 117 (41.5%) replied with interest in screening, of whom 57 (48.7%) verified as eligible. All 57 (100%) received LDCT. Most scans (94.4%) were categorized as Lung-RADS 1 or 2, indicating negative or benign findings. Comparisons with general population estimates showed no significant differences in Lung-RADS scores. The screening identified 21 incidental findings, including aortic aneurysms and severe coronary artery calcification. The implementation of lung cancer screening in a carceral setting was shown to be feasible and accepted by the incarcerated population.

Keywords: lung cancer, criminal justice, health maintenance, correctional health care

Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide (Han et al., 2020), and incarcerated people are at risk of excess cancer-related incidence and mortality. Justice-impacted individuals, or people who have interacted with the criminal justice system, are more likely to get lung cancer compared with the general population (Renault et al., 2018; Sunthankar et al., 2020). The prevalence of lung cancer among adults with criminal justice involvement is 4.6 per 1,000, compared with 2.4 per 1,000 in a representative community sample (Puglisi et al., 2020).

A 2021 scoping review also found that, depending on the study, incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people had cancer-related standardized mortality ratios ranging from 1.5 to 3.9 compared with the general population, with lung cancer being the greatest contributor to mortality (Manz et al., 2021). In the Texas prison system, primary lung cancer was found to be responsible for a quarter of all cancer diagnoses and deaths (Mathew et al., 2005). Limited literature considers incarceration itself as a key variable influencing lung cancer epidemiology and health care outcomes (Harzke et al., 2011; Rosen et al., 2011).

Among individuals who have experienced incarceration, lung cancer is detected at significantly younger ages. Indeed, the mean age of patients with lung cancer is 12 years lower among incarcerated individuals compared with the general population (Carbonnaux et al., 2013; Renault et al., 2018). And despite younger age at diagnosis, incarcerated patients are identified with cancer at more advanced stages. At the time of initial detection, incarcerated patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and lung cancer at more advanced stages compared with the general population, with the average stage being nearly one full stage higher for colorectal cancer (0.93 stage points) and more than half a stage higher for lung cancer (0.6 stage points; Sunthankar et al., 2020).

Patients with cancer with a history of incarceration may also have higher mortality rates. A 2022 Connecticut-based retrospective study found that individuals diagnosed with cancer while in prison had a 39% greater 5-year cancer-related mortality rate than patients with cancer who had never been incarcerated (Oladeru et al., 2022). Furthermore, the same study found that individuals who were diagnosed within 1 year of release from jail or prison had 82% higher mortality, with many of these cancers being detected during incarceration.

Incarceration can exacerbate health disparities among already marginalized populations. Men with a history of incarceration have life expectancies 7.3 years shorter than the general population (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). Incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals also have mortality rates 3.5 times higher than the general population, with cancer and cardiovascular disease accounting for a majority of the mortality in incarcerated people over the age of 45 (Binswanger et al., 2007). Incarcerated individuals also face greater exposure to lung cancer risk factors such as smoke inhalation, tobacco, and environmental exposures (Carbonnaux et al., 2013). In parallel to this, mass incarceration disproportionately affects marginalized communities and people of color (Blankenship et al., 2018).

Regular cancer screenings can reduce mortality from lung cancer (Becker et al., 2020; Toumazis et al., 2020). Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is widely supported as an effective way to screen for lung cancer and to reduce lung cancer mortality when used among high-risk individuals (Kian et al., 2022; Meza et al., 2021; Usman Ali et al., 2016). The current lung cancer screening recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is for individuals between the ages of 50 and 80 with more than a 20-pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit smoking within the past 15 years to receive annual LDCT lung cancer screenings (Krist et al., 2021).

However, in addition to challenges with treatment access, justice-impacted patients may lack access to routine health care maintenance cancer screenings. One study demonstrated that incarcerated persons, particularly Black individuals, received lower rates of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings than the percentage of individuals who reported being receptive to routine cancer screenings while in prison. For example, although 88% of individuals were interested in receiving a mammogram, only 41% received one, and 69% were interested in colon cancer screening, but only 31% were screened (Binswanger et al., 2005).

Incarcerated individuals are also less likely to access some cancer screenings, being 1.53 times more likely to have not been screened for colorectal cancer and 2.25 times more likely to have not been screened for breast cancer (McConnon et al., 2019). Critically, a scoping review found that there are very limited data on cancer screening in prison and no published studies on lung cancer screening in carceral settings (Manz et al., 2023).

Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Prison: Setting and Workflow Description

The Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) is a centralized unified state corrections system with an average daily population between 2,000 and 2,500 across one intake facility for men awaiting trial, four sentenced facilities of varying security levels (minimum, medium, maximum, high), and one combined women’s facility. RIDOC has a long-standing no-smoking policy that prohibits individuals from smoking while incarcerated, though many smoked prior to incarceration.

Up until 2021, lung cancer screening at the RIDOC with LDCT was offered on a case-by-case basis for patients as identified during routine physical exams with a medical provider. Since CT scanners are not available in any of the state’s facilities, a partnership with a local outpatient imaging center was established.

In 2021, the RIDOC initiated a lung cancer screening outreach initiative to provide evidence-based preventive health care screenings to sentenced individuals in their facilities. Individuals who met USPSTF age criteria (ages between 50 and 80) were sent an educational letter about lung cancer screening with a survey for them to self-disclose their smoking history. Survey questions covered items such as the number of packs smoked per day, the number of years they smoked, and when they last smoked. Those who expressed interest in lung cancer screening were instructed to reply (via prison mail) to or schedule a visit with the public health specialist.

The public health specialist then reviewed the responses, calculated the number of pack-years, and determined if individuals met USPSTF criteria for lung cancer CT scans. The public health specialist met with and verified smoking history of all who requested screening. A list of eligible individuals was then created, and CT scans were ordered and scheduled. Screening occurred over a 2-day period where eligible individuals were shuttled between the RIDOC facility and the outpatient CT imaging center. The event occurred during the summer of 2021 during a time of low cases of COVID-19 when many health care facilities were returning to full operations.

As scheduling of individual “medical trip” teams to a local CT scanner could be overly burdensome, a 2-day screening event at a local imaging center, located less than 3 miles from the facilities, was coordinated to screen all eligible patients efficiently.

In coordination with RIDOC correctional staff, patients were transported individually and sequentially to the imaging center. A private room was established where the patient, correctional officer, and a CT imaging center employee could meet to discuss and complete the standard lung cancer screening questionnaire for the community facility (Fig. 1). The patients were then escorted down a short hallway and placed on the scanner, and the scan was obtained as per the standard protocol.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Rhode Island Medical Imaging (RIMI) Lung Cancer Screening Questionnaire.

All scans were interpreted by one board-certified radiologist with specialty training in thoracic radiology and 15 years of experience. All scans were scored according to the ACR’s (American College of Radiology, 2019) Lung-RADS version 1.1 system, which ascribes a score of 0 to 4X, where each category represents increasing levels of suspicion for lung cancer. These scores guide follow-up recommendations based on the characteristics and dimensions of detected pulmonary nodules.

To our knowledge, this is the first study of any kind to report on the outcomes of a lung cancer screening program in a carceral setting.

Method

Study Design

This is a retrospective chart review/program evaluation of a lung cancer screening initiative in RIDOC. The program was conducted as part of a new regular health care service delivery program that started in 2021 and took place over the course of approximately 3 months.

Ethical Approval

This retrospective analysis was approved by the Lifespan Institutional Review Board to evaluate the outcomes of this operational initiative.

Statistical Methods

This study describes the characteristics of the prison population that was surveyed and screened, reasons for screening ineligibility, and screening outcomes. Data were analyzed using SAS software 9.4 with the FREQ procedure. All interval estimates were calculated using the binomial method for 95% confidence. Comparisons were made using ACR estimates from an existing meta-analysis across articles examining lung cancer screening in the United States, including 24 institutions and 32,817 patient encounters (Gu et al., 2023).

Results

Demographics

Among a total of approximately 1,484 sentenced individuals, 282 met the age criteria and were included in the mailing list. Of the 282, 117 replied via prison mail (response rate = 41.5%). Of the 117 individuals interested in screening, 57 (48.7%) were verified as eligible for CT screening and received LDCT. Reasons for ineligibility included smoking substances other than cigarettes (e.g., vaping and marijuana), having quit smoking for over 15 years, having smoked less than 20 pack-years, and having had the screening done within the past 12 months (Fig. 2). Of the 57 who were screened, 56 (98%) reported being male and the median age was 58 (interquartile range or IQR 55–62). The median smoking pack-year history was 40 (IQR 22–50) and the median years since quitting smoking was 8 (IQR 4–14).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

PRISMA diagram for lung cancer screening in a prison setting. ACI, Adult Correctional Institutions (the name of the Rhode Island correctional facility); ADP, average daily population; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

When compared with the community meta-analysis, the incarcerated cohort included younger patients on average (median age 58 years [IQR: 55–62] vs. mean age 64.6 years [range: 64.0–65.2]), a disproportionate male gender distribution (98% vs. 51%, respectively), and a slightly lower pack-year history (median 40 years [IQR: 22–50] vs. 46.5 years [range: 42.7–50.2]).

Screening Outcomes

As seen in Table 1, 47% (27/57) of individuals received a Lung-RADS score of 1 (negative), 47% (27/57) received a score of 2 (benign), 3.5% (2/57) received a score of 3 (probably benign), and 1.75% (1/57) received a score of 4A (suspicious). The Lung-RADS scores for the prison sample were not found to be different from ACR population estimates but trended toward lower Lung-RADS 3 and 4 rates compared with a recent meta-analysis.

Table 1.

Lung-RADS Score Comparison of Prison Screening Versus General Population

  RIDOC prison sample Community meta-analysis* ACR
Lung-RADS score Count Percentage (%) 95% CI Percentage (%) 95% CI Percentage (%)
1 27 47.4 [34.4, 60.3] 35.3 [25.7, 46.2] 90
2 27 47.4 [34.4, 60.3] 49.7 [40.7, 58.7]
3 2 3.5 [0.0, 16.5] 8.7 [7.6, 10.0] 5
4A 1 1.8 [0.0, 14.7] 4.2 [3.9, 4.6] 2
Open in a new tab

*Meta-analysis and ACR estimates are reproduced from “ACR Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Before Change in U.S. Preventative Services Taskforce Eligibility Criteria: 2014 to 2021” (Gu et al., 2023).

ACR, American College of Radiology; CI, confidence interval; RIDOC, Rhode Island Department of Corrections.

Two Lung-RADS 3 cases were recommended 6-month follow-up, and one Lung-RADS 4 case was recommended 3-month follow-up. Also, in total, 21 incidental findings were recorded: two (3.5%) aortic aneurysms, 15 (26%) moderate to severe coronary artery calcification (moderate/severe), and four (7%) emphysema/chronic bronchitis.

Discussion

This article describes the first retrospective review of screening outcomes of a comprehensive lung cancer screening program in a carceral setting. The implementation of a lung cancer screening program was feasible through basic patient questionnaires, eligibility assessment, and coordination with security/transportation and a local radiology community partner. Given a response rate of 41.5% among all individuals between age 50 and 80 and a 100% CT completion rate among respondents meeting screening eligibility criteria, a lung cancer screening program for sentenced individuals appears acceptable to patients and feasible in a correctional system.

The findings from this study are important for several reasons. First, they demonstrate that incarcerated patients are willing to engage in lung cancer screening, when offered, at rates at least comparable with the general population, in which fewer than 20% of eligible patients receive screening (Yong et al., 2020). Second, the results of the screening tests show no significant difference in the Lung-RADS score between incarcerated individuals and a broader community meta-analysis. These findings suggest that incarcerated patients participating in voluntary eligibility assessment and screening have screening results that are similar to those of the general population. However, given the small sample size, these results must be interpreted cautiously and underscore the need for larger, longitudinal studies to validate findings, particularly given other studies demonstrating higher rates of lung cancer in incarcerated populations. Third, we have demonstrated an intervention that enabled a 100% screening rate despite the logistical hurdles of security and transportation that are unique to the carceral setting.

This study provides an initial glance at lung cancer screening in carceral settings, but much more work remains to optimize screening for this high-risk population. Risk-based lung cancer screening is the idea of taking a more personalized approach to choosing who to screen. These factors currently include measures such as age, smoking history, race, medical history, and family history (Toumazis et al., 2020). Since incarcerated people get lung cancer at an earlier age and have higher cancer mortality rates, perhaps a wider net should be cast for them. In other words, a risk-based lung cancer screening philosophy would suggest that incarcerated populations could receive lung cancer screenings starting at a younger age or based on less restrictive smoking history criteria.

Risk-based screening is the foundation for the current USPSTF guidelines (Krist et al., 2021). In 2021, the USPSTF updated its lung cancer screening recommendation by expanding the age of eligibility and decreasing the pack-year requirements after finding that Black smokers were disproportionately missed by the previous screening guidelines (Han et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019). In recent years, there have been increased efforts to develop more nuanced and equitable risk-based models for lung cancer screening that may influence the next generation of screening (Ji et al., 2021; Toumazis et al., 2020).

Importantly, despite the earlier onset of lung cancer and increased lung cancer mortality among incarcerated populations, a history of justice involvement is consistently absent in contemporary risk models (Han et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2021; Li et al., 2019; Toumazis et al., 2020). Future research is needed to identify the underlying cause and extent of increased lung cancer risk among justice-involved individuals and to assess the ideal screening parameters for this high-risk population.

Although incarcerated patients may be at increased risk for lung cancer, exposure to tobacco is typically minimized or eliminated altogether during the period of incarceration. Policies surrounding tobacco use and access to cigarettes vary among correctional institutions. Since the Institute of Medicine began to recommend indoor smoke-free policies for the American Correctional Association in 2007, 87% of prisons have adopted indoor smoke-free policies (Kennedy et al., 2015). Before these policy changes, incarcerated persons were 30% more likely to smoke tobacco products than nonincarcerated individuals.

Anywhere from 20% to 76% of incarcerated individuals report continuing to smoke despite prison smoking bans (Kennedy et al., 2015). In the setting where this study was conducted, smoking is prohibited across the facility, including in recreational and visitor areas. This ban on smoking in prison could result in incarcerated individuals not reporting their entire smoking history if it was done against prison policy.

For patients with longer sentences, the potentially increased lung cancer risk associated with incarceration should be weighed against the decreased tobacco exposure in the institutional setting. The potential misalignment between prison smoking policies and smoking exposure while incarcerated suggests that future research should seek to clarify whether there is a difference in lung cancer risk among patients who have been incarcerated for longer than 15 years, when they would traditionally no longer qualify for screening.

Smoking cessation is an important aspect of lung cancer screening, and numerous studies have shown that the best outcomes for patients are achieved when cessation programs are coupled with screening efforts (Fucito et al., 2016). In fact, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires patients to receive a smoking cessation intervention or counseling as a requisite for reimbursing lung cancer screening for eligible patients (Stone, 2022).

Although incarcerated people may have no additional tobacco exposure during their incarceration, there is strong evidence to show that forced cessation alone does not translate to long-term success with quitting (Sourry et al., 2022). Just as patients at risk for lung cancer in carceral settings may benefit from evidence-based screening, access to evidence-based counseling and smoking cessation programs that confer long-term risk reduction may yield success. In a study of 200 incarcerated individuals, 70% of participants expressed a desire to quit smoking (Kauffman et al., 2011).

The incidental findings, such as aortic aneurysms and moderate to severe coronary artery calcification, also highlight the broader utility of LDCT screening in detecting comorbid conditions that may otherwise go unnoticed in carceral settings.

Of note, while this study yielded a 100% CT completion rate for individuals who participated in the program, only 41.5% of eligible individuals between age 50 and 80 opted in via the initial survey. Future iterations of this program can work to better increase response rates and provide more targeted outreach initiatives. Among the individuals who did not respond, it would be good to know: Are these nonsmokers who understood they were not eligible? Did they face language barriers or never receive the survey? Future programs could better identify eligible individuals through intake surveys, more targeted recruitment strategies, follow-up letters, and/or use of multiple modalities for recruitment (e.g., notification via tablet, a technology that has had growing uptake in correctional facilities).

This program relied on a community partnership. These are often state financial contracts though may offer potential for systemic health care improvement through academic partnerships with correctional facilities (Kendig, 2004).

Limitations

The study’s limited scope—restricted to a retrospective review of a single screening event without follow-up—means we cannot fully ascertain the long-term impact of lung cancer screenings on morbidity and mortality within the prison population. Additionally, the relatively small sample size limits the power of the results and prevents subanalyses by race or gender. Our study focused on a mostly male prison population that may not generalize to the community meta-analysis used for comparison. Future research should aim to include a larger cohort and a longitudinal design to monitor the impact of regular LDCT screenings over time.

Our study also focuses on a centralized prison system where all facilities are within a 1-mile radius of each other. Similarly, the outpatient medical imaging facility was less than 3 miles away from each prison facility. Larger institutions may face other facilitators and barriers to the coordination of an annual 2-day lung cancer screening program.

Cost can be a barrier to effective health care in a prison setting. A cost-effectiveness analysis is outside the scope of this article, and our study lacked financial data to provide insights into the cost of screening, follow-up, and treatment of findings, including the follow-up and management of incidental findings on imaging. Costs of correctional health care fall to the municipalities running the facilities. For jails, this is often a county or city. For prisons, this is often the state. There is a wide variability in health care financing across correctional facilities, though many of the cost savings related to community health programming could similarly apply to this population and affect downstream costs associated with late diagnosis of pathologies identified in screening.

Finally, our intervention relied upon voluntary completion of an eligibility survey through prison mail; individuals who chose not to complete the survey may include those with higher or lower risk, and alternative approaches that integrate lung cancer screening into other aspects of care, such as annual primary care visits, may have higher rates of update. Likewise, patients who faced barriers to reading, such as language barriers (the survey was offered only in English and Spanish), learning disabilities, and visual impairment, may have inadvertently been excluded from this study. Robust data were not collected for the demographics of individuals interested in but ineligible for lung cancer screening per USPSTF guidelines; better understanding these demographic differences and greater details on causes of ineligibility could help institutions complete this type of public health programming. Future studies should aim to include this vulnerable group of patients.

Conclusion

Incarcerated patients appear to have worse cancer mortality compared with the general population and are particularly at risk of lung cancer. This study demonstrates that population-based lung cancer screening in a carceral setting is feasible and acceptable. Our retrospective review of this event demonstrates screening can be completed efficiently in a small prison population and lays the groundwork for future research, as well as serving as a call to action for the integration of evidence-based screening programs into the standard health care provided in carceral settings.

Authors’ Contributions

T.H. and G.B. had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. J.B., K.K., and S.W. oversaw the execution of the pilot and contributed to the revisions of the manuscript. G.D. wrote the original version of the manuscript and contributed to revisions. T.H. reviewed imaging and contributed to revisions of the manuscript. G.B. and T.H. provided subject matter expertise (radiology and oncology) and revisions to each version of the manuscript. N.S. contributed to revision of the manuscript.

Author Disclosure Statement

There are no financial disclosures. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.

Funding Information

J.B. received grant funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA055690).

REFERENCES

  1. American College of Radiology. (2019). Lung‐RADS® version 1.1: Assessment categories release date: 2019. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Lung-RADS/LungRADSAssessmentCategoriesv1-1.pdf
  2. Becker, N., Motsch, E., Trotter, A., Heussel, C. P., Dienemann, H., Schnabel, P. A., Kauczor, H., Maldonado, S. G., Miller, A. B., Kaaks, R., & Delorme, S. (2020). Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening—Results from the randomized German LUSI trial. International Journal of Cancer, 146(6), 1503–1513. 10.1002/ijc.32486 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., & Koepsell, T. D. (2007). Release from prison—A high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157–165. 10.1056/nejmsa064115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Binswanger, I. A., White, M. C., Pérez-Stable, E. J., Goldenson, J., & Tulsky, J. P. (2005). Cancer screening among jail inmates: Frequency, knowledge, and willingness. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1781–1787. 10.2105/ajph.2004.052498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blankenship, K. M., del Rio Gonzalez, A. M., Keene, D. E., Groves, A. K., & Rosenberg, A. P. (2018). Mass incarceration, race inequality, and health: Expanding concepts and assessing impacts on well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 215, 45–52. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carbonnaux, M., Fossard, G., Amzallag, E., Piegay, C., Perot, E., Chossegros, P., Souquet, P. J., & Couraud, S. (2013). Earlier onset and poor prognosis of lung cancer in imprisoned patients. Oncology, 85(6), 370–377. 10.1159/000356877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fucito, L. M., Czabafy, S., Hendricks, P. S., Kotsen, C., Richardson, D., & Toll, B. A. (2016). Pairing smoking‐cessation services with lung cancer screening: A clinical guideline from the association for the treatment of tobacco use and dependence and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. Cancer, 122(8), 1150–1159. 10.1002/cncr.29926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gu, J. Z., Baird, G. L., Ge, C., Fletcher, L. M., Agarwal, S., Eltorai, A. E. M., & Healey, T. T. (2023). ACR lung CT screening reporting and data system, a systematic review and meta-analysis before change in U.S. Preventative Services Taskforce eligibility criteria: 2014 to 2021. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 20(8), 769–780. 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Han, S. S., Chow, E., ten Haaf, K., Toumazis, I., Cao, P., Bastani, M., Tammemagi, M., Jeon, J., Feuer, E. J., Meza, R., & Plevritis, S. K. (2020). Disparities of national lung cancer screening guidelines in the U.S. population. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 112(11), 1136–1142. 10.1093/jnci/djaa013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Harzke, A. J., Baillargeon, J. G., Kelley, M. F., Pruitt, S. L., Pulvino, J. S., & Paar, D. P. (2011). Leading medical causes of mortality among male prisoners in Texas, 1992–2003. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 17(3), 241–253. 10.1177/1078345811401362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ji, G., Bao, T., Li, Z., Tang, H., Liu, D., Yang, P., Li, W., & Huang, Y. (2021). Current lung cancer screening guidelines may miss high-risk population: A real-world study. BMC Cancer, 21(1), 50. 10.1186/s12885-020-07750-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kauffman, R. M., Ferketich, A. K., Murray, D. M., Bellair, P. E., & Wewers, M. E. (2011). Tobacco use by male prisoners under an indoor smoking ban. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 13(6), 449–456. 10.1093/ntr/ntr024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kendig, N. E. (2004). Correctional health care systems and collaboration with academic medicine. JAMA, 292(4), 501–503. 10.1001/jama.292.4.501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kennedy, S. M., Davis, S. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2015). Smoke-free policies in U.S. prisons and jails: A review of the literature. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 17(6), 629–635. 10.1093/ntr/ntu225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kian, W., Zemel, M., Levitas, D., Alguayn, W., Remilah, A. A., Rahman, N. A., & Peled, N. (2022). Lung cancer screening: A critical appraisal. Current Opinion in Oncology, 34(1), 36–43. 10.1097/cco.0000000000000801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kouyoumdjian, F. G., Andreev, E. M., Borschmann, R., Kinner, S. A., & McConnon, A. (2017). Do people who experience incarceration age more quickly? Exploratory analyses using retrospective cohort data on mortality from Ontario, Canada. PloS One, 12(4), e0175837. 10.1371/journal.pone.0175837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Krist, A. H., Davidson, K. W., Mangione, C. M., Barry, M. J., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Kubik, M., Landefeld, C. S., Li, L., Ogedegbe, G., Owens, D. K., Pbert, L., Silverstein, M., Stevermer, J., Tseng, C.-W., & Wong, J. B. (2021). Screening for lung cancer. JAMA, 325(10), 962–970. 10.1001/jama.2021.1117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, C.-C., Matthews, A. K., Rywant, M. M., Hallgren, E., & Shah, R. C. (2019). Racial disparities in eligibility for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening among older adults with a history of smoking. Cancer Causes & Control, 30(3), 235–240. 10.1007/s10552-018-1092-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Manz, C. R., Odayar, V. S., & Schrag, D. (2021). Disparities in cancer prevalence, incidence, and mortality for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated patients: A scoping review. Cancer Medicine, 10(20), 7277–7288. 10.1002/cam4.4251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Manz, C. R., Odayar, V. S., & Schrag, D. (2023). Cancer screening rates and outcomes for justice-involved individuals: A scoping review. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 29(3), 220–231. 10.1089/jchc.21.11.0128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mathew, P., Elting, L., Cooksley, C., Owen, S., & Lin, J. (2005). Cancer in an incarcerated population. Cancer, 104(10), 2197–2204. 10.1002/cncr.21468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McConnon, A., Fung, K., Lofters, A., Hwang, S. W., & Kouyoumdjian, F. G. (2019). Colorectal and breast cancer screening status for people in Ontario provincial correctional facilities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(4), 487–493. 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Meza, R., Jeon, J., Toumazis, I., ten Haaf, K., Cao, P., Bastani, M., Han, S. S., Blom, E. F., Jonas, D. E., Feuer, E. J., Plevritis, S. K., de Koning, H. J., & Kong, C. Y. (2021). Evaluation of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. JAMA, 325(10), 988–997. 10.1001/jama.2021.1077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Oladeru, O. T., Aminawung, J. A., Lin, H.-J., Gonsalves, L., Puglisi, L., Mun, S., Gallagher, C., Soulos, P., Gross, C. P., & Wang, E. A. (2022). Incarceration status and cancer mortality: A population-based study. PloS One, 17(9), e0274703. 10.1371/journal.pone.0274703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Puglisi, L. B., Winkelman, T. N., Gross, C. P., & Wang, E. A. (2020). Cancer prevalence among adults with criminal justice involvement from a national survey. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(3), 967–968. 10.1007/s11606-019-05177-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Renault, L., Perrot, E., Pradat, E., Bartoli, C., Greillier, L., Remacle-Bonnet, A., Telmon, N., Mazières, J., Molinier, L., & Couraud, S. (2018). Concerns about lung cancer among prisoners. Lung, 196(1), 115–124. 10.1007/s00408-017-0066-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rosen, D. L., Wohl, D. A., & Schoenbach, V. J. (2011). All-cause and cause-specific mortality among black and white North Carolina state prisoners, 1995–2005. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(10), 719–726. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.04.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sourry, R. J., Hyslop, F., Butler, T. G., & Richmond, R. L. (2022). Impact of smoking bans and other smoking cessation interventions in prisons, mental health and substance use treatment settings: A systematic review of the evidence. Drug and Alcohol Review, 41(7), 1528–1542. 10.1111/dar.13524 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stone, A. (2022). CMS expands eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Oncology Nursing Society. https://www.ons.org/publications-research/voice/advocacy/cms-expands-eligibility-criteria-lung-cancer-screening-low
  30. Sunthankar, K. I., Griffith, K. N., Talutis, S. D., Rosen, A. K., McAneny, D. B., Kulke, M. H., Tseng, J. F., & Sachs, T. E. (2020). Cancer stage at presentation for incarcerated patients at a single urban tertiary care center. PloS One, 15(9), e0237439. 10.1371/journal.pone.0237439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Toumazis, I., Bastani, M., Han, S. S., & Plevritis, S. K. (2020). Risk-based lung cancer screening: A systematic review. Lung Cancer, 147, 154–186. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Usman Ali, M., Miller, J., Peirson, L., Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Kenny, M., Sherifali, D., & Raina, P. (2016). Screening for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine, 89, 301–314. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Yong, P. C., Sigel, K., Rehmani, S., Wisnivesky, J., & Kale, M. S. (2020). Lung cancer screening uptake in the United States. Chest, 157(1), 236–238. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.2176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Correctional Health Care are provided here courtesy of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and National Commission on Correctional Health Care

RESOURCES