Education
Routine screening is key to cancer detection.
Detecting cancer in its earliest form requires accessibility to routine screening
Screening as a pathway
Screening works best as a multi-tier system.5
Mass screening at population scale vectors patients into precision clinical evaluation. The two tiers do different jobs, and each requires a different kind of technology.
TIER 1
Mass population screening
Wide, low-burden and low-cost. Reaches the whole eligible population and identifies who warrants a closer look.
TIER 2
Precision clinical evaluation
Imaging and molecular diagnostics. Built for specificity and detailed characterization of those vectored forward.
TIER 3
Diagnosis & treatment
Definitive clinical diagnosis and the beginning of care.
AIR-DS Lung is being developed for Tier 1 — the wide entry point that determines how many people enter the pathway at all.
Reaching people
Most people eligible for lung cancer screening never receive it.
Each subsequent handoff compounds the delay. It is reported the average time between first symptom and diagnosis is 570 days in the U.S.2
The people the recommendation is written for are not the people it reaches.
Eligible population
100 people
18
are screened
82
are not
Why earlier detection matters
Lung cancer outcomes differ substantially by stage at diagnosis.1
Stage at diagnosis is among the strongest determinants of the treatment options available to a patient. Finding disease earlier does not guarantee a better outcome, but it changes what can be attempted.
Treatment options
Earlier stage generally means a wider range of interventions.
Time
Earlier detection creates time to consider those options.
Uncertainty
A clearer picture sooner shortens the period of not knowing.
Burden
Late-stage disease carries greater cost to patients and services.
The pathway
Where patients can be lost.
Every stage is a handoff between people, and every handoff is a place a patient can stop moving forward.
Eligible
9.4%6
of eligible adults discussed screening with a provider in the past year
Screened
18%4
of eligible adults are screened
Referred
Lost to follow-up
45%7
do not return for repeat screening
Evaluated
Diagnosed
5702
days on average from first symptom to diagnosis
Treated
21%4
of diagnosed cases receive no treatment
Potential points of friction at each stage of the journey. U.S. figures from separate studies; not a single cohort.
Evidence to practice
Knowing something works is not the same as doing it.
Research has estimated an average lag of approximately 17 years between evidence being generated and its widespread adoption in clinical practice. The figure varies considerably by intervention and setting, and should be read as an indication of scale rather than a fixed rule.
The barriers are structural rather than informational. Funding, workflow, workforce capacity, reimbursement and coordination all have to align before a practice becomes routine.
80%
of evidence-based practice
17
years, on average to reach widespread use
Source: Balas & Boren (2000); Morris et al. (2011).3
Our view
“Closing the evidence-to-practice gap takes more than innovation. It requires solutions that are fit for purpose.”
Dr. Scott Tackett
President & CEO, AIRA Sciences
A screening program is only as strong as its weakest handoff. Improving the accuracy of a test does not help a patient who never reaches it, and a result that arrives without a clear next step changes nothing.
References
Goldstraw, P., et al. (2016). The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 11(1), 39–51.
Suchsland, M. Z., et al. (2022). How Timely Is Diagnosis of Lung Cancer? Cohort Study of Individuals with Lung Cancer Presenting in Ambulatory Care in the United States. Cancers (Basel), 14(23), 5756.
Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 9(1), 65–70. See also Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 510–520.
American Lung Association (2024–2025). State of Lung Cancer report and key findings. Bandi, P., et al. (2025). Lung cancer screening uptake in the United States, 2024. JAMA. Lung Cancer Policy Network (2023). Case study: the US national lung cancer screening programme.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (2020). Screening programmes: a short guide. Increase effectiveness, maximize benefits and minimize harm. Copenhagen: WHO. World Health Organization (2021). WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention (2nd ed.). Geneva: WHO. The two-tier model shown here applies these WHO screening principles to lung cancer.
Health Information National Trends Survey (2023). Lung cancer screening discussions between patients and providers, HINTS Brief 55. National Cancer Institute (HINTS 6, 2022 data).
Lopez-Olivo, M. A., et al. (2020). Patient adherence to screening for lung cancer in the US: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 3(11), e2025102.
Advancing infrared applications for earlier detection — beginning with lung cancer.
AIR-DS is a UKCA marked in vitro diagnostic medical device, developed in accordance with IEC 62304 and under an ISO 13485 certified quality management system. In the US, a CLIA certified laboratory will offer a laboratory developed test (LDT) with AIR-DS Lung Test. It has not been cleared or approved by the FDA. Information on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes and should not be interpreted as medical advice.