Background: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) revealed a 20% reduction in lung cancer (LC) mortality when low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was utilized for LC screening vs chest radiography. NLST participants were predominantly Non-Hispanic Whites, with only 1.8% Hispanics. The goal of our study was to investigate the attributes of a LC screening program in a largely Hispanic urban population and compare with NLST. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 421 consecutive cases who underwent LDCT screening from 2016-2019 at University of Miami (UM), with similar inclusion criteria as the NLST. Demographic characteristics, smoking status, lung RADS, LC detection and compliance were examined & compared with NLST cohort using summary statistics and χ² tests for categorical variables. Results: Demographic and smoking characteristics of the UM cohort didn’t resemble those of NLST LDCT cohort. UM cohort had a different racial and ethnic profile, with a higher percentage of Hispanics (47.3% vs 1.8%) and African Americans (15% vs 4.5%) in the UM cohort vs NLST cohort respectively (p < 0.001). UM cohort generally had lesser smoking intensity, and significantly fewer active smokers when compared to the NSLT cohort; 38.5% vs 48.1% respectively. The proportion of positive LDCT screens (Lung-RADS Class 3 or 4) in the UM cohort (14.1%) was almost similar to the NLST cohort (13.7%) (p = 0.81). The UM cohort had a higher LC detection rate (3.3%) than the NLST cohort (1.1%) (p < 0.001). In keeping with goals of screening, both cohorts had 50% or more LC cases detected at an early curable stage. Overall patient adherence to screening guidelines was more than 90% in NLST cohort; whereas almost a quarter of referred patients in UM cohort didn’t show for their initial decision-making visit and only 45% completed two or more scans. Conclusions: Our LDCT screening program was based in a Hispanic urban location (UM) with 47.3% Hispanics. Compared to NLST LDCT arm, the UM cohort had fewer active smokers, lighter smoking history, a more diverse population, somewhat higher LC detection rate, weaker adherence to screening related visits. More data is needed to understand obstacles to compliance with screening in minority populations.