BACKGROUND The results of the National Lung Screening Trial showed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in all‐cause mortality when high‐risk patients were screened with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x‐ray (CXR). The US Preventive Services Task Force has issued a grade B recommendation for LDCT screening, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private insurers now cover the screening cost under certain conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of LDCT screening for lung cancer among family physicians. METHODS A 32‐item questionnaire was distributed to members of the South Carolina Academy of Family Physicians in 2015. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS There were 101 respondents, and most had incorrect knowledge about which organizations recommended screening. Many physicians continued to recommend CXR for lung cancer screening. Most felt that LDCT screening increased the odds of detecting disease at earlier stages (98%) and that the benefits outweighed the harms (75%). Concerns included unnecessary procedures (88%), stress/anxiety (52%), and radiation exposure (50%). Most physicians discussed the risks/benefits of screening with their patients in some capacity (76%); however, more than 50% reported making 1 or no screening recommendations in the past year. CONCLUSIONS Most family physicians report discussing LDCT with patients at high risk for lung cancer; however, referrals remain low. There are gaps in physician knowledge about screening guidelines and reimbursement, and this indicates a need for further educational outreach. The development of decision aids may facilitate shared decision‐making discussions about screening, and targeted interventions may improve knowledge gaps. Cancer 2016;122:2324–2331. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

As more clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents evolve, the number of eligibility criteria seems to be increasing. The importance and utility of eligibility criteria must be considered in the context of the fundamental goal of a clinical trial: to understand the risks and benefits of a treatment in the intended-use patient population. Although eligibility criteria are necessary to define the population under study and conduct trials safely, excessive requirements may severely restrict the population available for study, and often, this population is not reflective of the general population for which the drug would be prescribed. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee, which comprises academic faculty, industry representatives, and patient advocates, evaluated this issue. Evaluation results were mixed. Most physicians agreed that excessive eligibility criterias slow study enrollment rates and prolong the duration of enrollment; however, this hypothesis was difficult to validate with the data examined. We propose the organization of a public workshop, with input from regulatory bodies and key stakeholders, with the goal of developing an algorithmic approach to determining eligibility criteria for individual study protocols, which may help guide future investigators and companies in streamlining eligibility criteria in the era of molecularly driven therapy.