Bhattacharyya, Oindrila

Abstract Rationale Rural populations in the US experience a higher lung cancer burden compared to urban residents, potentially due to differences in risk factors and access to preventative care and early detection. We sought to characterize tobacco use, smoking cessation, and lung cancer screening patterns by rurality to identify modifiable gaps in the lung cancer care continuum. Methods We analyzed data from current and former smoking adults in the Southern Community Cohort Study, a large prospective cohort recruited from community health centers across 12 southeastern states. Participants aged 65-80 years with at least 9 months of Medicare Part A/B and less than 3 months of Part C coverage between 2014 and 2020 were included. Data were linked with the National Death Index and Medicare claims for outcome ascertainment. Rurality was defined using Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes. We compared demographic characteristics, smoking patterns, use of smoking cessation interventions, and receipt of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening between rural and urban participants over time. Results Among 10,114 adults included (56% urban; 46% rural), 54% were female, 55% identified as Black/African American, about a third reported less than a high school education, and 45% lived in areas in the highest quartile of deprivation. Urban residents were of similar age (66 vs 67 years), and more likely to currently smoke (42% vs 35%), but had fewer baseline smoking pack-years (27 vs 30 pack-years) than rural residents. Approximately 2% died of lung cancer during follow-up. Using the USPSTF 2013 lung cancer screening criteria, 27% of urban and 26% of rural residents were eligible. This increased unevenly to 38% urban and 35% rural under the USPSTF 2021 criteria. LDCT uptake was low, increasing from 0% in 2014 to 6% in 2020 among screening-eligible participants. Use of cessation interventions was similarly low. Among current smoking participants, 7% received smoking cessation counseling, and 3% had a varenicline prescription. These patterns remained relatively stable over time, with no significant rural-urban differences in LDCT and cessation intervention use. Conclusion Despite modest differences in smoking prevalence and screening eligibility, we found comparable lung cancer mortality and similarly low utilization of LDCT and cessation interventions among rural and urban residents. Our findings suggest that, among people in lower socioeconomic groups, shared socioeconomic constraints may extend beyond the rural-urban divide. Further research is needed to understand how social determinants of health may be addressed to improve lung cancer outcomes across the screening continuum. This abstract is funded by: NIH

Abstract Introduction: Lung cancer rates differ across rural and urban areas, but few studies have evaluated rural-urban differences across the risk-screening continuum. We examined smoking, cessation interventions, and lung cancer screening patterns across the rural-urban continuum in a geographically defined area over 10 years. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study (2014-2023) was conducted using clinical data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, derived from healthcare encounters in a 27-county region of the midwestern United States. Patients ages 40-80 were included. We used Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes to assign residence as urban, rural, or highly rural. We examined yearly smoking prevalence, cessation intervention (pharmacotherapy, counseling), and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Results: Over the 10-year study period, the sample size ranged from 305,530 to 340,411 people annually with 36-38% urban, 56-57% rural, and 6-7% highly rural. Current smoking prevalence declined from 14 to 12% over the 10-year period (range=12-16%; p=0.06) and was consistently lower in urban areas (range=10-14%) than rural (range=12-17.0%) and highly rural areas (range=12-18%; p=<0.001). Among individuals who currently smoked with no history of lung cancer, yearly smoking cessation intervention ranged from 16% to 23%, increasing over the 10-year period (p=<0.001). Cessation medication (varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine replacement) prescription consistently increased overall over time but remained higher in urban than rural and highly rural areas (p=<0.001). Cessation counseling rates also increased overall over time and were similar between urban and rural areas and lower in highly rural areas (p=<0.001). Among people who had ever-smoked aged 50-80 years with no diagnosis of lung cancer, LDCT screening increased from 0.0% to 3.1% over the study period. Increases were higher in urban areas (0.0-3.6%) and similar in rural and highly rural areas (0.0-2.8% and 0.0-2.9%, respectively; p=<0.001). Among people who currently smoked, LDCT screening also increased over the study period (0.0-6.4%), with higher increases in urban (0.1-8.0%) than rural (0.0-5.7%) or highly rural (0.1-6.1%) areas (p=<0.001). After the new screening guidelines in 2021, rates in all areas increased year-on-year. Conclusion: In this cohort, we found that smoking prevalence, cessation interventions, and lung cancer screening improved from 2014-2023 across the rural-urban continuum. Unfortunately, smoking prevalence remained higher and cessation interventions and screening rates lower in rural compared to urban areas. The persistent patterns underscore the need for strategies to overcome barriers for rural residents and improve lung cancer prevention and early detection in all areas. Citation Format: Brianna Tranby, Paul A. Decker, Jiang Ruoxiang, David Midthun, Lori C. Sakoda, Melinda C. Aldrich, Debra Friedman, Adoma Manful, Oindrila Bhattacharyya, Christi Patten, Chyke A. Doubeni. Patterns of tobacco use, cessation interventions, and lung cancer screening in rural vs. urban areas over time; a 10-year retrospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 5045.

Abstract Next-generation sequencing has transformed cancer care by providing essential insights for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. However, variability in testing timing, reporting practices, and interpretation challenges limits its clinical impact. This article highlights key opportunities to optimize somatic reporting, emphasizing the importance of timely testing throughout the cancer care continuum to maximize the diagnostic and therapeutic relevance of findings. Technical factors such as test design, sequencing depth, and the use of liquid biopsy substantially influence result accuracy and interpretation, underscoring the need for careful integration with clinical history. Standardized reporting practices that clearly delineate diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic findings can enhance the clinical utility of next-generation sequencing results. Streamlined formats and curated clinical trial data further support actionable decision making. Additionally, direct patient engagement and education are essential for empowering patients to navigate genomic testing and make informed decisions about their care. By leveraging multidisciplinary tumor boards, decision-support tools, and emerging artificial intelligence technologies, clinicians can better navigate the complexities of somatic reports. Standardization and clarity in reporting are critical to advancing precision oncology, empowering providers and patients to make informed treatment decisions and improve outcomes.