Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites

Key Points

Question

How do lung cancer screening program websites portray benefits and harms, and what next steps do they recommend for individuals considering screening?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study of 162 lung cancer screening program websites, potential benefits of screening were presented significantly more often than potential harms (98% vs 48%). In addition, only 22% of the websites guided individuals to a shared decision-making visit with a health care professional.

Meaning

There appears to be an imbalance in the presentation of benefits and harms on lung cancer screening program websites and a lack of guideline-driven recommended next steps for shared decision-making.

Abstract

Importance

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that individuals at high risk for lung cancer consider benefits and harms before pursuing lung cancer screening. Medical centers develop websites for their lung cancer screening programs, but to date little is known about the websites’ portrayal of benefits and harms or what next steps they recommend for individuals considering screening.

Objective

To assess the presentation of potential benefits and harms and recommended next steps on lung cancer screening program websites.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional content analysis of 162 lung cancer screening program websites of academic medical centers (n = 81) and state-matched community medical centers (n = 81) that were randomly selected from American College of Radiology lung cancer screening–designated centers was conducted. The study was performed from December 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Website presentation of screening-associated benefits and harms was the primary outcome. Benefit was defined as any description related to the potential reduction in lung cancer mortality. Harms were based on the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and included false positives, false negatives, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. The secondary outcome was next steps that are recommended by websites.

Results

Overall, the 162 lung cancer screening program websites described the potential benefits more frequently than they described any potential harms (159 [98%] vs 78 [48%], P < .01). False-positive findings were the most frequently reported (72 [44%]) potential harm. Community centers were less likely than academic centers to report any potential harm (32 [40%] vs 46 [57%], P = .03), potential harm from radiation (20 [25%] vs 35 [43%], P = .01), and overdiagnosis (0% vs 11 [14%], P < .01). One hundred nineteen websites (73%) did not explicitly recommend that individuals personally consider the potential benefits and harms of screening; community centers were less likely than academic centers to give this recommendation (15 [19%] vs 28 [35%], P = .02). Most institutions (157 [97%]) listed follow-up steps for screening, but few institutions (35 [22%]) recommended that individuals discuss benefits and harms with a health care professional.

Conclusions and Relevance

Information on public-facing websites of US lung cancer screening programs appears to lack balance with respect to portrayal of potential benefits and harms of screening. Important harms, such as overdiagnosis, were commonly ignored in the sites evaluated, and most of the centers did not explicitly guide individuals toward a guideline-recommended, shared decision-making discussion of harms and benefits.

This cross-sectional study examines the information on benefits and harms of lung cancer screening presented on websites created by academic and community medical centers.

Introduction

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported a reduction in mortality from lung cancer screening with use of low-dose computed tomographic (CT) scans in high-risk individuals (those aged 55-74 years who were current or former smokers who quit within the past 15 years, and had at least 30 pack-years of smoking).¹ Based on this study, screening with low-dose CT scans is now widely recommended in guidelines, including those of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).^2,3,4,5 However, screening recommendations have been controversial, in part because screening also frequently leads to false-positive findings (resulting in additional radiologic and procedural workup and associated complications), false-negative findings, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings.^6,7 Because of these possible risks, guidelines also emphasize the need for individuals to understand the potential harms of screening. For eligible individuals to attain an understanding of benefits and harms, guidelines recommend that health care professionals engage these individuals in shared decision-making. For example, in their guidelines, the American College of Chest Physicians has described the balance between benefits and harms as tenuous,⁴ and the USPSTF states that screening “should be the result of a thorough discussion of the possible benefits, limitations, and known and uncertain harms.”^2[p333] The American College of Chest Physicians and American Thoracic Society further highlight that the purpose of shared decision-making is to allow individuals to “make informed choices about whether low-dose CT scan screening is right for them,”^8[p886] and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services underscored the importance of shared decision-making by requiring a dedicated shared decision-making visit for screening to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries.⁹

With almost all individuals living in the US using the internet, including 88% of those aged 50 to 64 years and 73% of those older than 65 years, medical centers have created websites with information on health and health programs.¹⁰ These websites include information about lung cancer screening and lung cancer screening programs. Concerning lung cancer screening content on such websites, the American Thoracic Society and American College of Chest Physicians state that “any direct-to-consumer advertising…should not be coercive or overly optimistic about potential benefits.”^8[p884] These lung cancer screening websites may be the first lung cancer screening information that eligible individuals encounter and may influence their impression of the benefits and harms of screening, screening decision, and how they proceed to the next steps in the process of considering screening. However, to our knowledge, no studies have examined how or whether screening program websites portray the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening or whether the websites explicitly encourage individuals to consider and discuss the harms and benefits of screening as recommended by guidelines. To date, this lack of literature is true for both academic and community medical centers, which may have different institutional objectives or processes in publishing websites, potentially leading to differences in the reporting of information on lung cancer screening. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the portrayal of harms and benefits of lung cancer screening on academic and community screening program websites and their recommended next steps for individuals. We hypothesized that academic centers would be more likely to present balanced information, including description of potential harms.

Methods

We performed a standardized web search between December 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019, for lung cancer screening program information on websites of academic and community medical centers. We evaluated the websites for the reporting of benefits, harms, and recommended next steps for eligible individuals. The institutional review board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill evaluated the proposal for this study and deemed it exempt from further review because it only uses publicly available information and does not involve any protected health information.

We used the Google search engine to search for lung cancer screening information available on academic medical center websites affiliated with each of the 152 allopathic medical schools in the US that we identified from the Association of American Medical Colleges.¹¹ For each institution, we entered “lung cancer screening [medical school name]” and evaluated the first page of search results for a webpage containing lung cancer screening program information from that institution. We excluded websites with information presented in languages other than English as well as news sites and blog posts.

We then categorized the list of American College of Radiology lung cancer screening–designated centers (n = 1779) by state. Using a random number generator, we selected a state-matched community medical center for each academic center with a screening program website. State matching was done to control for potential geographic differences. During the matching process, screening sites with the terms medical center or hospital in the name of the site from the American College of Radiology list were identified and searched for screening information through Google in the same manner as the academic centers. Oncology centers, identified as those having cancer or oncology in their name, and radiology imaging centers were excluded because these were distinct entities from the community medical centers. If we found no community medical center with screening information in the same state as an academic center with a screening website, we randomly selected the matched center from the American College of Radiology list of neighboring states.

Using a standardized data extraction form, we recorded whether websites described any benefits of screening overall or a mortality benefit. Both were coded as present or absent. A benefit was defined as any positive language about screening related to preventing lung cancer mortality or all-cause mortality, including phrases such as chance to be cured. Mortality benefit included any language that indicated a decreased chance of death or increased survival. We additionally noted whether websites portrayed the approximate magnitude of benefit based on current evidence and, if so, whether it was presented as a relative risk reduction (eg, 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality) or an absolute risk reduction (eg, 3 lung cancer deaths prevented per 1000 screened, or similar evidence). The presence of the following potential harms, each listed in the USPSTF guidelines, was also recorded as present or absent: any harm overall, false-positives, false-negatives, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings.² Radiation was recorded as a harm if it was described with harms language (ie, discussed with other harms or explicitly stating that it could cause cancer) and not if it was only mentioned that low-dose CT scans use lower levels of radiation than regular CT scans. We also recorded whether websites explicitly recommended that individuals consider both the benefits and harms of screening themselves. We further noted categories of next steps that the websites recommended for individuals: generally call the screening center with further questions, call the screening center to schedule a screening appointment, discuss screening with a primary health care professional generally, obtain a screening referral from a primary health care professional, discuss harms and benefits of screening with a primary health care professional, and discuss harms and benefits with a health care professional at the medical center’s lung cancer screening program.

We included data from any information presented in text, audio, or video format within the website. Websites were dually reviewed with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer if needed. Uncertainties about the presence of information were also discussed and resolved between reviewers. We did not consider the information linked to external websites as being present on the evaluated website. When multiple next steps were listed on a website, we counted the one with the highest ranking on the basis of what we considered to be most appropriate and aligned with national guidelines as follows, favoring explicit recommendations to discuss benefits and harms: (1) discuss harms and benefits with your primary health care professional, (2) discuss harms and benefits with a health care professional at the medical center’s lung cancer screening program, (3) discuss generally with your primary health care professional, (4) generally call the screening center to schedule a screening appointment, (5) call the screening center with further questions, and (6) obtain a referral from your primary health care professional.

Statistical Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to evaluate the reporting of benefits, harms, and next steps. We used bivariate analysis with Pearson χ² and Fisher exact tests as appropriate to compare reporting on academic and community centers, with an unpaired P value cutoff level of .05 considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was carried out with Stata, release 15 (StataCorp LLC).

Results

Of the 152 US allopathic medical schools, we identified 81 affiliated centers with lung cancer screening websites. After state-matching with 81 community centers, we included a total of 162 medical centers with lung cancer screening website information. Three states (Minnesota, Nebraska, and New Mexico) and Washington, DC, did not have American College of Radiology lung cancer screening–designated community centers with online lung cancer screening information, so 5 academic centers were matched to community centers in neighboring states.

On the 162 center websites, any benefit of screening was presented more frequently than any harm (159 [98%] vs 78 [48%], P < .01) (Table 1). Academic centers more frequently presented quantitative benefits (relative risk reduction or absolute risk reduction) of the NLST compared with community centers (44 [54%] vs 26 [32%], P = .01). Both academic and community centers were more likely to present the NLST relative risk reduction of 20% than the NLST absolute risk reduction of 3 lung cancer deaths prevented per 1000 people screened (66 [41%] vs 1 [1%], P < .01). False-positives (72 [44%]) were the most frequently reported harm by both types of centers and overdiagnosis (11 [7%]) was the least frequently presented. Academic centers vs community centers more frequently reported any potential harm (46 [57%] vs 32 [40%], P = .03), harms of radiation (35 [43%] vs 20 [25%], P = .01), and overdiagnosis (11 [14%] vs 0%, P < .01). No websites listed all 5 of the harms that we recorded.

Table 1. Academic and Community Medical Center Website Reporting of Lung Cancer Screening Benefits and Harms.

Reported screening information	No. (%)			P value
	Total (n = 162)	Academic center (n = 81)	Community center (n = 81)
Any benefit	159 (98)	80 (99)	79 (98)	>.99
Lung cancer mortality benefit	113 (70)	59 (73)	54 (67)	.39
NLST relative risk only	66 (41)	40 (49)	26 (32)	.04
NLST absolute risk only	1 (1)	1 (1)	0	>.99
Both absolute and relative risk	3 (2)	3 (4)	0	.25
Any harm	78 (48)	46 (57)	32 (40)	.03
False-positives	72 (44)	42 (52)	30 (37)	.06
False-negatives	26 (16)	14 (17)	12 (15)	.67
Radiation exposure	55 (34)	35 (43)	20 (25)	.01
Overdiagnosis	11 (7)	11 (14)	0	<.01
Incidental findings	14 (9)	10 (12)	4 (5)	.16

Abbreviation: NLST, National Lung Screening Trial.

One hundred nineteen websites (73%) did not explicitly recommend that individuals consider both the benefits and harms of screening, and community centers were less likely than academic centers to give this recommendation (15 [19%] vs 28 [35%], P = .02) (Table 2). Most websites (157 [97%]) listed follow-up steps for screening, but few (29 [18%]) specifically recommended discussing benefits and harms with an individual’s primary health care professional. Eighty-five of the websites (52%) guided individuals to their primary health care professional in some manner, although 25 of these 85 websites (29%) recommended only that individuals obtain a referral for screening from their primary health care professional. There was no statistically significant difference between academic and community centers in recommended next steps for individuals.

Table 2. Academic and Community Center Lung Cancer Screening Website Recommended Next Steps.

Reported recommendations	No. (%)			P value
	Total (n = 162)	Academic (n = 81)	Community (n = 81)
Encourages individuals to weigh benefits and harms	43 (27)	28 (35)	15 (19)	.02
Call or contact screening center	48 (30)	21 (26)	27 (33)	.39
Discuss generally with primary health care professional	31 (19)	12 (15)	19 (23)	.23
Discuss benefits and harms with primary health care professional	29 (18)	17 (21)	12 (15)	.31
Obtain referral from primary health care professional	25 (15)	15 (19)	10 (12)	.39
Call or contact to schedule screening	19 (12)	9 (11)	10 (12)	>.99
Discuss benefits and harms with institution provider at screening visit	6 (4)	4 (5)	2 (3)	.68

Discussion

The lung cancer screening program websites of academic and community medical centers evaluated in this study rarely included a balanced message of potential benefits and harms that aligns with current recommendations. Less than half of all websites presented any harm of screening and reporting of individual harms was variable. Websites listed overdiagnosis and incidental findings at a rate of less than 10%. Nearly all websites, however, presented a benefit of lung cancer screening.

These findings reveal a possible lack of balance in presenting benefits and harms of lung cancer screening. The imbalance is consistent with historical approaches to cancer screening advertising, which ignore or minimize potential harms and costs. Experts and organizations, such as the National Cancer Institute, seek to move communication about screening from persuasion to objective information.¹² This shift is true in the official policy statement of the American Thoracic Society and American College of Chest Physicians, which states that direct-to-consumer material not be “overly optimistic” about potential benefits.⁸ The imbalance that we observed also does not seem to align with the language and intent of national guidelines, which recommend that individuals eligible for screening be thoroughly informed of the potential benefits and harms of screening.^2,3,4,13 Excerpts from several websites showed both balanced and imbalanced aspects from both community and academic centers, such as next steps and balanced patient stories of lung cancer–screening decisions. Table 3 provides examples of imbalanced content as well as balanced components.^{14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21} eFigure 1, eFigure 2, and eFigure 3 in the Supplement depict screenshots.

Table 3. Excerpts and Context of Balanced and Imbalanced Aspects of Selected Lung Cancer Screening Websites.

Category	Excerpt	Context
Balanced
Academic website
Item 1	“Learn more about your options, benefits, and risks”14	Website included a shared decision-making tool, qualitative and quantitative descriptions of potential harms, and personal stories for individuals who chose to screen and those who chose not to.
Item 2	“Like all screening tests, there are some trade-offs, and patients must decide for themselves whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks”15	Guideline-driven recommended next step by one website.
Community website
Item 1	“Are there any risks to LDCT lung screening?”16	Website provided descriptions of the potential harms of screening after this question.
Item 2	“Make an appointment with your primary care physician to discuss potential benefits, limitations and possible risks of having a lung cancer screening scan.”17	Website included guideline recommendations.
Imbalanced
Academic website
Item 1	“Get scanned, I did.”18	Opening line of a lung cancer screening video embedded on a website.
Item 2	“Individuals meeting the above eligibility criteria receive a low-dose CT screening...” 19	Website indicating that meeting the lung cancer screening eligibility (listed previously on the site) is the only step before screening.
Community website
Item 1	“The downsides to undergoing a low dose lung CT scan are few.”20	Website prefaces the potential harms of screening with this statement.
Item 2	“Your lungs allow you to enjoy moments like these. Don’t take them for granted. LOVE your lungs. Get screened.”21	Ending text from a lung cancer screening video embedded on a website.

Abbreviation: LDCT, low-dose computed tomography.

The lung cancer screening information presented on websites is not necessarily developed and published to serve the same purposes as true decision aids. From the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective, responsibility for conducting and documenting shared decision-making ultimately falls to the physician who orders the initial screening test.⁹ However, this regulatory requirement for a single shared decision-making visit does not capture the true processes of decision-making. In reality, individuals make judgments and construct preferences as soon as they receive information, and they are susceptible to anchoring bias, in which initial information received anchors and overly influences subsequent judgments.^22,23 Thus, because these websites may be the only detailed information that patients receive before attending an in-person visit at a specialized screening program, it is reasonable to think that the websites may influence patient assumptions about lung cancer screening. In addition, even with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirement for shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, several studies indicate a low frequency of such discussions.^13,24

We found that screening websites more often portrayed relative risk reduction (20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality from the NLST) than absolute risk reduction (0.3% from the NLST). Thus, it may be difficult for individuals to develop an understanding of the low likelihood that they, as an individual, will benefit from screening.²⁵ A systematic review of the presentation of statistical evidence found that, compared with absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction was perceived to be greater as well as more persuasive.²⁶ Decision-making experts echo this finding, cautioning that the use of relative risk may make the magnitude of potential benefit appear “more impressive—and potentially misleading—than absolute risk reduction.”^27[p25] As with the imbalance of potential benefits and harm, any distortion in the presentation of benefits alone is unlikely to be corrected in the clinical context. Shared decision-making discussions are challenging to implement in practice, and clinicians, in general, are more likely to overestimate the benefits of screening.^13,24,28,29

As noted, although screening program websites are not responsible for full delivery of guideline-recommended shared decision-making, they can create expectations in screening-eligible individuals and guide their considerations about next steps. We found that only about a quarter of websites encouraged eligible individuals to consider the benefits and harms of screening and even fewer specifically guided individuals to a visit at which the tradeoffs involved with screening would explicitly be considered. Some websites indicated that eligible individuals should simply ask for a referral from their primary health care professional to have the screening done—a recommendation that appears to bypass guideline-recommended shared decision-making. Without being primed to consider the tradeoffs and formulate their own preferences, individuals may assume the next steps are to visit a screening center for the sole purpose of completing low-dose CT scan screening. This concern is heightened by evidence suggesting that, even when tertiary screening centers provide robust, shared decision-making services and use high-quality materials at the time of the in-person visit, virtually all patients will proceed to complete screening.³⁰ This finding contrasts with studies reporting that screening preferences among informed, screening-eligible individuals who view decision aids in nonreferral settings are heterogeneous and that substantial proportions prefer not to be screened.^31,32

Our findings suggest the need for policy efforts aimed at helping patients receive timely, balanced information about preference-sensitive cancer screening decisions, including lung cancer screening. In the near term, development of expert consensus and specific standards about what information to publish on websites may help encourage the provision of balanced information across screening centers. Just as standards were created by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration for decision aids, similar standards could be developed to enhance the quality of websites by establishing a framework for improving their content and evaluation. Like the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, the standard would benefit from including categories such as content, including benefits and harms qualitatively and quantitatively described, and balance in reporting of information, including patient stories.³³ Until that time, we believe academic and community medical centers should evaluate the material published on their websites and consider how it can be improved to reflect and facilitate practices recommended in lung cancer screening guidelines.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. First, we did not include oncology centers or radiology-specific imaging centers in our sample, although in a limited search of these types of centers, we noted that websites with lung cancer screening information were sparse. In addition, we did not evaluate material that was available only on external links from our sample websites. Second, we do not know how often these websites are accessed by screening-eligible individuals or at what stage of the screening process. Third, we did not systematically assess whether websites mentioned potential psychological harms of screening, such as distress associated with prolonged follow-up of screening-detected nodules. Fourth, it is possible that some existing websites were missed with our search methods.

Conclusions

Overall, there appears to be an imbalance of harms and benefits reporting on both academic and community medical center lung cancer screening websites. Potential harms of screening seem to be presented much less frequently than benefits, and academic programs appeared to be more likely than community programs to report screening-associated harms.

Supplement.

eFigure 1: Screenshots of an Imbalanced Embedded Video From a Lung Cancer Screening Website

eFigure 2: Screenshot of Imbalanced Information on a Lung Cancer Screening Website

eFigure 3: Screenshots of Balanced Components of Lung Cancer Screening Websites