The Role of Smoking Status in Making Risk-Informed Diagnostic Decisions in the Lung Cancer Pathway: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals and Patients

Abstract

Background Lung cancer clinical guidelines and risk tools often rely on smoking history as a significant risk factor. However, never-smokers make up 14% of the lung cancer population, and this proportion is rising. Consequently, they are often perceived as low-risk and may experience diagnostic delays. This study aimed to explore how clinicians make risk-informed diagnostic decisions for never-smokers. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 lung cancer diagnosticians, supported by data from interviews with 20 never-smoker lung cancer patients. The data were analyzed using a framework analysis based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and data-driven interpretations. Results Participants described 3 main strategies for making risk-informed decisions incorporating smoking status: guidelines, heuristics, and potential harms. Clinicians supplemented guidelines with their own heuristics for never-smokers, such as using higher thresholds for chest X-ray. Decisions were easier for patients with high-risk symptoms such as hemoptysis. Clinicians worried about overinvestigating never-smoker patients, particularly in terms of physical and psychological harms from invasive procedures or radiation. To minimize unnecessary anxiety about lung cancer risk, clinicians made efforts to downplay this. Conversely, some patients found that this caused process harms such as delays and miscommunications. Conclusion Improved guidance and methods of risk differentiation for never-smokers are needed to avoid diagnostic delays, overreassurance, and clinical pessimism. This requires an improved evidence base and initiatives to increase awareness among clinicians of the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers. As the proportion of never-smoker patients increases, this issue will become more urgent. Highlights Smoking status is the most common risk factor used by clinicians to guide decision making, and guidelines often focus on this factor. Some clinicians also use their own heuristics for never-smokers, and this becomes particularly relevant for patients with lower risk symptoms. Clinicians are also concerned about the potential harms and risks associated with deploying resources on diagnostics for never-smokers. Some patients find it difficult to decide whether or not to go ahead with certain procedures due to efforts made by clinicians to downplay the risk of lung cancer. Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay between smoking history, clinical decision making, and patient anxiety in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.