Using geospatial visualization to inform mobile lung cancer screening in Maryland.

Abstract

e20098 Background: Geographic disparities in access to healthcare services may contribute to low uptake of lung cancer screening and increased morbidity and mortality. Mapping prevalent lung cancer cases and their association with location of LDCT services, areas of healthcare professionals’ shortage and medically underserved areas may inform optimal location of new access-focused screening and research projects. Methods: Geospatial data on lung cancer cases diagnosed at University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) and those identified by the Maryland Department of Health Cancer Registry between 2016 and 2024 were obtained and integrated with publicly available geospatial datasets, including federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), Medically Underserved Areas (MUAs), and county-level geographic boundary files. Data were aggregated and harmonized to generate statewide and county-level interactive geospatial maps which were used to visualize the distribution of lung cancer cases relative to LDCT screening centers within HPSA and MUA areas. Interactive web-based maps enable users to hover, zoom in and out, and toggle map layers over counties and view lung cancer cases. Results: Among 6,446 lung cancer cases identified statewide, substantial geographic variation in lung cancer burden was observed across Maryland counties. County-level geospatial maps showed heterogeneous distributions of lung cancer burden, with several high-burden areas co-located in areas with high HPSA and MUA indices. Interactive map visualizations facilitated identification of areas with concurrent elevated lung cancer burden and underserved designations which can be targeted to additional interventions to improve uptake of screening. Conclusions: Interactive geospatial mapping of lung cancer burden, location of screening services, HPSA, and MUA can inform interventions to increase uptake of lung cancer screening. These maps highlight “screening deserts” that may warrant further investigation using facility-level or travel-time–based analyses. Our approach should inform future studies healthcare access and uptake of lung cancer screening.