Search

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SMJ, MR, JLD, CH, ST and HH are supported by funding for a large trial of low dose CT screening, called the ‘SUMMIT Study’ by GRAIL Inc. SLQ and NN collaborate on the SUMMIT Study. SMJ has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, BARD1 Bioscience and Janssen for being an Advisory Board Expert and travel to a US conference. SMJ received grant funding from Owlstone for a separate research study and has a family member who has a financial association with AstraZeneca. MR has received travel funding for a conference from Takeda and an honorarium for planning and speaking at educational meetings from AstraZeneca., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Rationale: Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) are also at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to age and smoking exposure. Whether the LCS episode is useful for early detection of COPD is not well established. Objectives: To explore associations between symptoms, comorbidities, spirometry, and emphysema in participants enrolled in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial. Methods: This cross-sectional study was a prespecified analysis nested within Lung Screen Uptake Trial, which was a randomized study testing the impact of differing invitation materials on attendance of 60- to 75-year-old smokers and ex-smokers to a "lung health check" between November 2015 and July 2017. Participants with a smoking history ≥30 pack-years and who quit ≤15 years ago, or meeting a lung cancer risk of ≥1.51% via the Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian model or ≥2.5% via the Liverpool Lung Project model, were offered LDCT. COPD was defined and classified according to the GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria using prebronchodilator spirometry. Analyses included the use of descriptive statistics, chi-square tests to examine group differences, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression to explore associations between symptom prevalence, airflow limitation, and visually graded emphysema. Results: A total of 560 of 986 individuals included in the analysis (57%) had prebronchodilator spirometry consistent with COPD; 67% did not have a prior history of COPD and were termed "undiagnosed." Emphysema prevalence in those with known and "undiagnosed" COPD was 73% and 68%, respectively. A total of 32% of those with "undiagnosed COPD" had no emphysema on LDCT. Inhaler use and symptoms were more common in the "known" than the "undiagnosed" COPD group (63% vs. 33% with persistent cough [ P  < 0.001]; 73% vs. 33% with dyspnea [ P  < 0.001]). Comorbidities were common in all groups. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of respiratory symptoms were more significant for airflow obstruction (aOR GOLD 1 and 2, 1.57; confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.17; aOR GOLD 3 and 4, 4.6; CI, 2.17-9.77) than emphysema (aOR mild, 1.12; CI, 0.81-1.55; aOR moderate, 1.33; CI, 0.85-2.09; aOR severe, 4.00; CI, 1.57-10.2). Conclusions: There is high burden of "undiagnosed COPD" and emphysema in LCS participants. Adding spirometry findings to the LDCT enhances identification of individuals with COPD.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity. Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening. Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1 ) aged 60 to 75 years, 2 ) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3 ) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs"). Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only ( P  < 0.01). Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).