Search

The frequency of lung cancer detection in the Manchester Lung Health Checks (MLHCs), a community-based screening service, was higher than in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) over two screening rounds. We aimed to identify the potential reasons for this difference.We analyzed individual-level data from NLST and MLHCs, restricting to MLHCs participants who met NLST eligibility criteria. We calculated 'detection ratios' comparing the frequency of lung cancer detection in MLHCs vs NLST, first after excluding NLST participants ineligible by MLHC eligibility criteria (6-year lung cancer risk ≥ 1.51 %), and then after standardization to remove the influence of different distributions of baseline lung cancer risk.Among the 1,079 MLHCs participants who met NLST eligibility criteria, 4.7% were diagnosed with lung cancer over two screening rounds compared with 1.7% in NLST, giving an initial detection ratio of 2.6 (95%CI 2.2-3.0). This was reduced to 2.2 (95%CI 1.3-2.3) after imposing the MLHCs eligibility criterion on NLST, and further to 1.6 (95%CI 1.2-2.1) after removing the influence of different risk distributions. In stratified analyses, the standardized detection ratio was particularly elevated in individuals who were older, living in areas of high socioeconomic disadvantage, or had an FEV/FVC ratio less than 60.The 2.6-fold higher lung cancer detection in the community-based MLHCs vs NLST is partly explained by differences in eligibility criteria and baseline risk distributions. The residual 60% increase may relate to higher detection in certain risk groups, including older participants, those with more obstructive lung disease, and those living in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage.

IntroductionLow-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the performance of two risk prediction models (PLCOM2012 and Liverpool Lung Project model (LLPv2)) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria in a community-based screening programme.MethodsEver-smokers aged 55–74, from deprived areas of Manchester, were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC). Individuals at higher risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥1.51%) were offered annual LDCT screening over two rounds. LLPv2 score was calculated but not used for screening selection; ≥2.5% and ≥5% thresholds were used for analysis.ResultsPLCOM2012 ≥1.51% selected 56% (n=1429) of LHC attendees for screening. LLPv2 ≥2.5% also selected 56% (n=1430) whereas NLST (47%, n=1188) and LLPv2 ≥5% (33%, n=826) selected fewer. Over two screening rounds 62 individuals were diagnosed with LC; representing 87% (n=62/71) of 6-year incidence predicted by mean PLCOM2012 score (5.0%). 26% (n=16/62) of individuals with LC were not eligible for screening using LLPv2 ≥5%, 18% (n=11/62) with NLST criteria and 7% (n=5/62) with LLPv2 ≥2.5%. NLST eligible Manchester attendees had 2.5 times the LC detection rate than NLST participants after two annual screens (≈4.3% (n=51/1188) vs 1.7% (n=438/26 309); padjOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.64; p=0.028).ConclusionProspective comparisons of risk prediction tools are required to optimise screening selection in different settings. The PLCOM2012 model may underestimate risk in deprived UK populations; further research focused on model calibration is required.

In England, a risk-based approach is used to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening. Ensuring effective communication and counselling of risk is therefore increasingly important. In this study, we explore the perception of lung cancer risk in attendees of a community-based screening service, located in socio-economically deprived areas of Manchester. We analyse responses based on demographic variables, calculated risk score and screening eligibility.The Manchester Lung Health Check (LHC) programme invited ever smokers, age 55-80, to a lung cancer risk assessment in which their 6-year risk was calculated (using the PLCO371 participants completed the questionnaire; 66% (n = 243) had linked clinical data. Perceived absolute risk was markedly higher than calculated risk (median: 20% vs. 1%; p 0.001) and higher in women than men (25% vs. 15%; p = 0.001). There was no correlation between perceived absolute and calculated risk. Overall, 30% classified themselves at higher, and 21% at lower, lung cancer risk compared to others their age. Median PLCOEmploying comparative rather than absolute risk may assist risk counselling. Further research is required to determine the optimal approach to risk communication in this setting.

Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the performance of two risk prediction models (PLCOEver-smokers aged 55-74, from deprived areas of Manchester, were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC). Individuals at higher risk (PLCOPLCOProspective comparisons of risk prediction tools are required to optimise screening selection in different settings. The PLCO