Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme

Impact of Simulated Reduced-Dose Chest CT on Diagnosing Pulmonary T1 Tumors and Patient Management

To determine the diagnostic performance of simulated reduced-dose chest CT scans regarding pulmonary T1 tumors and assess the potential impact on patient management, a repository of 218 patients with histologically proven pulmonary T1 tumors was used. Virtual reduced-dose images were simulated at 25%- and 5%-dose levels. Tumor size, attenuation, and localization were scored by two experienced chest radiologists. The impact on patient management was assessed by comparing hypothetical LungRADS scores. The study included 210 patients (41% females, mean age 64.5 ± 9.2 years) with 250 eligible T1 tumors. There were differences between the original and the 5%-but not the 25%-dose simulations, and LungRADS scores varied between the dose levels with no clear trend. Sensitivity of Reader 1 was significantly lower using the 5%-dose vs. 25%-dose vs. original dose for size categorization (0.80 vs. 0.85 vs. 0.84; p = 0.007) and segmental localization (0.81 vs. 0.86 vs. 0.83; p = 0.018). Sensitivities of Reader 2 were unaffected by a dose reduction. A CT dose reduction may affect the correct categorization and localization of pulmonary T1 tumors and potentially affect patient management.

An evaluation of CT radiation doses within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate radiation doses for all low-dose CT scans performed during the first year of a lung screening trial.

METHODS

For all lung screening scans that were performed using a CT protocol that delivered image quality meeting the RSNA QIBA criteria, radiation dose metrics, participant height, weight, gender, and age were recorded. Values of volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) were evaluated as a function of weight in order to assess the performance of the scan protocol across the participant cohort. Calculated effective doses were used to establish the additional lifetime attributable cancer risks arising from trial scans.

RESULTS

Median values of CTDIvol, DLP, and effective dose (IQR) from the 3521 scans were 1.1 mGy (0.70), 42.4 mGycm (24.9), and 1.15 mSv (0.67), whilst for 60-80kg participants the values were 1.0 mGy (0.30), 35.8 mGycm (11.4), and 0.97 mSv (0.31). A statistically significant correlation between CTDIvol and weight was identified for males (r = 0.9123, P < .001) and females (r = 0.9052, P < .001), however, the effect of gender on CTDIvol was not statistically significant (P = .2328) despite notable differences existing at the extremes of the weight range. The additional lifetime attributable cancer risks from a single scan were in the range 0.001%-0.006%.

CONCLUSIONS

Low radiation doses can be achieved across a typical lung screening cohort using scan protocols that have been shown to deliver high levels of image quality. The observed dose levels may be considered as typical values for lung screening scans on similar types of scanners for an equivalent participant cohort.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Presentation of typical radiation dose levels for CT lung screening examinations in a large UK trial. Effective radiation doses can be of the order of 1 mSv for standard sized participants. Lifetime attributable cancer risks resulting from a single low-dose CT scan did not exceed 0.006%.

Invitation strategies and participation in a community-based lung cancer screening programme located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation

INTRODUCTION

Although lung cancer screening is being implemented in the UK, there is uncertainty about the optimal invitation strategy. Here, we report participation in a community screening programme following a population-based invitation approach, examine factors associated with participation, and compare outcomes with hypothetical targeted invitations.

METHODS

Letters were sent to all individuals (age 55-80) registered with a general practice (n=35 practices) in North and East Manchester, inviting ever-smokers to attend a Lung Health Check (LHC). Attendees at higher risk (PLCOm2012NoRace score≥1.5%) were offered two rounds of annual low-dose CT screening. Primary care recorded smoking codes (live and historical) were used to model hypothetical targeted invitation approaches for comparison.

RESULTS

Letters were sent to 35 899 individuals, 71% from the most socioeconomically deprived quintile. Estimated response rate in ever-smokers was 49%; a lower response rate was associated with younger age, male sex, and primary care recorded current smoking status (adjOR 0.55 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.58), p<0.001). 83% of eligible respondents attended an LHC (n=8887/10 708). 51% were eligible for screening (n=4540/8887) of whom 98% had a baseline scan (n=4468/4540). Screening adherence was 83% (n=3488/4199) and lung cancer detection 3.2% (n=144) over 2 rounds. Modelled targeted approaches required 32%-48% fewer invitations, identified 94.6%-99.3% individuals eligible for screening, and included 97.1%-98.6% of screen-detected lung cancers.

DISCUSSION

Using a population-based invitation strategy, in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation, is effective and may increase screening accessibility. Due to limitations in primary care records, targeted approaches should incorporate historical smoking codes and individuals with absent smoking records.

Personalised lung cancer risk stratification and lung cancer screening: do general practice electronic medical records have a role?

BACKGROUND

In the United Kingdom (UK), cancer screening invitations are based on general practice (GP) registrations. We hypothesize that GP electronic medical records (EMR) can be utilised to calculate a lung cancer risk score with good accuracy/clinical utility.

METHODS

The development cohort was Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-SAIL (2.3 million GP EMR) and the validation cohort was UK Biobank-UKB (N = 211,597 with GP-EMR availability). Fast backward method was applied for variable selection and area under the curve (AUC) evaluated discrimination.

RESULTS

Age 55-75 were included (SAIL: N = 574,196; UKB: N = 137,918). Six-year lung cancer incidence was 1.1% (6430) in SAIL and 0.48% (656) in UKB. The final model included 17/56 variables in SAIL for the EMR-derived score: age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking status, family history, body mass index (BMI), BMI:smoking interaction, alcohol misuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, dementia, hypertension, painful condition, stroke, peripheral vascular disease and history of previous cancer and previous pneumonia. The GP-EMR-derived score had AUC of 80.4% in SAIL and 74.4% in UKB and outperformed ever-smoked criteria (currently the first step in UK lung cancer screening pilots).

DISCUSSION

A GP-EMR-derived score may have a role in UK lung cancer screening by accurately targeting high-risk individuals without requiring patient contact.

Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study

Background

Lung cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with early detection through screening critical to improving patient outcomes. However, recruiting high-risk individuals, particularly in deprived populations, for screening remains a considerable challenge. This study aims to co-design a targeted recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening, tailored to the specific needs and experiences of high-risk individuals, in collaboration with a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel and expert stakeholders in Ireland.

Methods

We will employ a mixed-methods design guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions. Our approach will integrate systematic review findings on screening participation interventions, evaluation of the recruitment strategy's feasibility in an Irish context, and the application of behavioural science frameworks. The target population includes individuals over 55 years, either current smokers or those who quit within the last year, who reside in highly deprived areas.

Conclusion

This co-designed recruitment strategy will combine evidence-based research, local context understanding, and stakeholder input to develop a solution that is both scientifically robust and tailored to the target population's needs. This patient-centred approach aims to increase the potential for successful implementation of lung cancer screening programs, thereby improving early detection and patient outcomes.

Liquid Biopsy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer: Current and Future Clinical Applications

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with the majority of cases diagnosed in an advanced stage. Early-stage disease non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has a better outcome, nevertheless the 5-year survival rates drop from 60% for stage IIA to 36% for stage IIIA disease. Early detection and optimized perioperative systemic treatment are frontrunner strategies to reduce this burden. The rapid advancements in molecular diagnostics as well as the growing availability of targeted therapies call for the most efficient detection of actionable biomarkers. Liquid biopsies have already proven their added value in the management of advanced NSCLC but can also optimize patient care in early-stage NSCLC. In addition to having known diagnostic benefits of speed, accessibility, and enhanced biomarker detection compared to tissue biopsy, liquid biopsy could be implemented for screening, diagnostic, and prognostic purposes. Furthermore, liquid biopsy can optimize therapeutic management by overcoming the issue of tumor heterogeneity, monitoring tumor burden, and detecting minimal residual disease (MRD), i.e., the presence of tumor-specific ctDNA, post-operatively. The latter is strongly prognostic and is likely to become a guidance in the postsurgical management. In this review, we present the current evidence on the clinical utility of liquid biopsy in early-stage lung cancer, discuss a selection of key trials, and suggest future applications.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes for all lung cancer patients, but its burden is less understood in the context of screening. This review synthesises the prevalence of comorbidities among lung cancer screening (LCS) candidates and summarises the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL databases from January 1990 to February 2021. We included LCS studies that reported a prevalence of comorbidity, as a prevalence of a particular condition, or as a summary score. We also summarised LCS clinical guidelines that addressed comorbidity or frailty for LCS as a secondary objective for this review. Meta-analysis was used with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model to estimate the prevalence of selected comorbidities.

RESULTS

We included 69 studies in the review; seven reported comorbidity summary scores, two reported performance status, 48 reported individual comorbidities, and 12 were clinical guideline papers. The meta-analysis of individual comorbidities resulted in an estimated prevalence of 35.2% for hypertension, 23.5% for history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (10.7% for severe COPD), 16.6% for ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 13.1% for peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 12.9% for asthma, 12.5% for diabetes, 4.5% for bronchiectasis, 2.2% for stroke, and 0.5% for pulmonary fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidities were highly prevalent in LCS populations and likely to be more prevalent than in other cancer screening programmes. Further research on the burden of comorbid disease and its impact on screening uptake and outcomes is needed. Identifying individuals with frailty and comorbidities who might not benefit from screening should become a priority in LCS research.

Interventions Designed to Increase the Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: An Equity-Oriented Scoping Review

Introduction

Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) is lower in populations with the highest burden of lung cancer risk (through the social patterning of smoking behavior) and lowest levels of health care utilization (through structurally inaccessible care) leading to a widening of health inequities.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework to inform equitable access to LCS by illuminating knowledge and implementation gaps in interventions designed to increase the uptake of LCS. We comprehensively searched for LCS interventions (Ovid Medline, Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus from 2000 to June 22, 2021) and included peer-reviewed articles and gray literature published in the English language that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of LCS, charted data using our previously published tool and conduced a health equity analysis to determine the intended-unintended and positive-negative outcomes of the interventions for populations experiencing the greatest inequities.

Results

Our search yielded 3572 peer-reviewed articles and 54,292 pieces of gray literature. Ultimately, we included 35 peer-reviewed articles and one gray literature. The interventions occurred in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy, focusing on shared decision-making, the use of electronic health records as reminders, patient navigation, community-based campaigns, and mobile computed tomography scanners. We developed an equity-oriented LCS framework and mapped the dimensions and outcomes of the interventions on access to LCS on the basis of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness of the intervention. No intervention was mapped across all five dimensions. Most notably, knowledge and implementation gaps were identified in dimensions of acceptability, availability, and affordability.

Conclusions

Interventions that were most effective in improving access to LCS targeted priority populations, raised community-level awareness, tailored materials for sociocultural acceptability, did not depend on prior patient engagement/registration with the health care system, proactively considered costs related to participation, and enhanced utilization through informed decision-making.

Lung cancer screening

Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.

Detection of COPD in the SUMMIT Study lung cancer screening cohort using symptoms and spirometry

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major comorbidity in lung cancer screening (LCS) cohorts, with a high prevalence of undiagnosed COPD. Combining symptom assessment with spirometry in this setting may enable earlier diagnosis of clinically significant COPD and facilitate increased understanding of lung cancer risk in COPD. In this study, we wished to understand the prevalence, severity, clinical phenotype and lung cancer risk of individuals with symptomatic undiagnosed COPD in a LCS cohort.

METHODS

16 010 current or former smokers aged 55-77 years attended a lung health check as part of the SUMMIT Study. A respiratory consultation and spirometry were performed alongside LCS eligibility assessment. Those with symptoms, no previous COPD diagnosis and airflow obstruction were labelled as undiagnosed COPD. Baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was performed in those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOm2012 score ≥1.3% and/or meeting USPSTF 2013 criteria).

RESULTS

Nearly one in five (19.7%) met criteria for undiagnosed COPD. Compared with those previously diagnosed, those undiagnosed were more likely to be male (59.1% versus 53.2%; p<0.001), currently smoking (54.9% versus 47.6%; p<0.001) and from an ethnic minority group (p<0.001). Undiagnosed COPD was associated with less forced expiratory volume in 1 s impairment (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades 1 and 2: 85.3% versus 68.4%; p<0.001) and lower symptom/exacerbation burden (GOLD A and B groups: 95.6% versus 77.9%; p<0.001) than those with known COPD. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that airflow obstruction was an independent risk factor for lung cancer risk on baseline LDCT (adjusted OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.73-4.34; p<0.001), with a high risk seen in those with undiagnosed COPD (adjusted OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.67-4.64; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted case-finding within LCS detects high rates of undiagnosed symptomatic COPD in those most at risk. Individuals with undiagnosed COPD are at high risk for lung cancer.

Early Diagnosis and Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the most significant cause of cancer death, accounting for about 20% of all cancer-related mortality. A significant reason for this is delayed diagnosis, either due to lack of symptoms in early-stage disease or presentation with non-specific symptoms common with a broad range of alternative diagnoses. More is needed in terms of increasing public awareness, providing adequate healthcare professional education and implementing clinical pathways that improve the earlier diagnosis of symptomatic lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography screening of high-risk, asymptomatic populations has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, with focus now shifting towards how best to implement lung cancer screening on a wider scale in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner. For maximum benefit, efforts must be made to optimise uptake, especially among high-risk populations with significant socioeconomic deprivation, as well as successfully incorporate tobacco-dependency treatment. Quality assured programme management will be critical to minimising screening-related harms and adequately managing incidental findings. By undertaking the above, there can be optimism that lung cancer outcomes can be improved significantly in the near future.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend

INTRODUCTION

There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible.

METHODS

Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

Increasing uptake to a lung cancer screening programme: building with communities through co-design

Background

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake.

Methods

A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data.

Results

In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public.

Conclusion

Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review options for more rapid diagnosis of lung cancer at an earlier stage, thereby improving survival. These options include screening, allowing general practitioners to refer patients directly to low-dose computed tomography scan instead of a chest X-ray and the abolition of the "visitation filter", i.e. hospital doctors' ability to reject referrals from general practitioners without prior discussion with the referring doctor.

Implementing lung cancer screening in Europe: taking a systems approach

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Europe. Screening by means of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can shift detection to an earlier stage and reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals. However, to date, Poland, Croatia, Italy, and Romania are the only European countries to commit to large-scale implementation of targeted LDCT screening. Using a health systems approach, this article evaluates key factors needed to enable the successful implementation of screening programs across Europe. Recent literature on LDCT screening was reviewed for 10 countries (Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom) and complemented by 17 semistructured interviews with local experts. Research findings were mapped against a health systems framework adapted for lung cancer screening. The European policy landscape is highly variable, but potential barriers to implementation are similar across countries and consistent with those reported for other cancer screening programs. While consistent quality and safety of screening must be ensured across all screening centers, system factors are also important. These include appropriate data infrastructure, targeted recruitment methods that ensure equity in participation, sufficient capacity and workforce training, full integration of screening with multidisciplinary care pathways, and smoking cessation programs. Stigma and underlying perceptions of lung cancer as a self-inflicted condition are also important considerations. Building on decades of implementation research, governments now have a unique opportunity to establish effective, efficient, and equitable lung cancer screening programs adapted to their health systems, curbing the impact of lung cancer on their populations.

Lung cancer screening by volume computed tomography: thriving to high performance

Low-dose volume CT screening for lung cancer leads to a significant decrease in lung-cancer-related mortality. However, optimisation of the post-screening protocol will be crucial for optimal healthcare.https://bit.ly/2ZkJPpH

The Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Research Priorities

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, primarily because most people present when the stage is too advanced to offer any reasonable chance of cure. Over the last two decades, evidence has accumulated to show that early detection of lung cancer, using low-radiation dose computed tomography, in people at higher risk of the condition reduces their mortality. Many countries are now making progress with implementing programmes, although some have concerns about cost-effectiveness. Lung cancer screening is complex, and many factors influence clinical and cost-effectiveness. It is important to develop strategies to optimise each element of the intervention from selection and participation through optimal scanning, management of findings and treatment. The overall aim is to maximise benefits and minimise harms. Additional integrated interventions must include at least smoking cessation. In this review, we summarize the evidence that has accumulated to guide optimisation of lung cancer screening, discuss the remaining open questions about the best approach and identify potential barriers to successful implementation.

Lung Cancer Screening Considerations During Respiratory Infection Outbreaks, Epidemics or Pandemics: An International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee Report

After the results of two large, randomized trials, the global implementation of lung cancer screening is of utmost importance. However, coronavirus disease 2019 infections occurring at heightened levels during the current global pandemic and also other respiratory infections can influence scan interpretation and screening safety and uptake. Several respiratory infections can lead to lesions that mimic malignant nodules and other imaging changes suggesting malignancy, leading to an increased level of follow-up procedures or even invasive diagnostic procedures. In periods of increased rates of respiratory infections from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and others, there is also a risk of transmission of these infections to the health care providers, the screenees, and patients. This became evident with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic that led to a temporary global stoppage of lung cancer and other cancer screening programs. Data on the optimal management of these situations are not available. The pandemic is still ongoing and further periods of increased respiratory infections will come, in which practical guidance would be helpful. The aims of this report were: (1) to summarize the data available for possible false-positive results owing to respiratory infections; (2) to evaluate the safety concerns for screening during times of increased respiratory infections, especially during a regional outbreak or an epidemic or pandemic event; (3) to provide guidance on these situations; and (4) to stimulate research and discussions about these scenarios.

Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The NLST reported a significant 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with three annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screens and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial indicates a similar reduction. We present the results of the UKLS trial.

METHODS

From October 2011 to February 2013, we randomly allocated 4 055 participants to either a single invitation to screening with LDCT or to no screening (usual care). Eligible participants (aged 50-75) had a risk score (LLPv2) ≥ 4.5% of developing lung cancer over five years. Data were collected on lung cancer cases to 31 December 2019 and deaths to 29 February 2020 through linkage to national registries. The primary outcome was mortality due to lung cancer. We included our results in a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the latest randomised trial evidence.

FINDINGS

1 987 participants in the intervention and 1 981 in the usual care arms were followed for a median of 7.3 years (IQR 7.1-7.6), 86 cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT arm and 75 in the control arm. 30 lung cancer deaths were reported in the screening arm, 46 in the control arm, (relative rate 0.65 [95% CI 0.41-1.02]; p=0.062). The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a pooled overall relative rate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) from nine eligible trials.

INTERPRETATION

The UKLS trial of single LDCT indicates a reduction of lung cancer death of similar magnitude to the NELSON and NLST trials and was included in a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials which provides unequivocal support for lung cancer screening in identified risk groups.

FUNDING

NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Analysis of the baseline performance of five UK lung cancer screening programmes

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer specific mortality. Several countries, including the UK, are evaluating the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening using the latest evidence. In this paper we report baseline screening performance from five UK-based lung cancer screening programmes.

METHODS

Data was collected at baseline from each screening programme. Measures of performance included prevalence of screen detected lung cancer, rate of surveillance imaging for indeterminate findings and surgical resection rates. Screening related harms were assessed by measuring false positive rates, number of invasive tests with associated complications in individuals without lung cancer and benign surgical resection rates.

RESULTS

A total of 11,148 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan during the period of analysis (2011 to 2020). Overall, 84.7% (n = 9,440) of baseline LDCT scans were categorised as negative, 11.1% (n = 1,239) as indeterminate and 4.2% (n = 469) as positive. The prevalence of screen detected lung cancer was 2.2%, ranging between 1.8% and 4.4% for individual programmes. The surgical resection rate was 66% (range 46% to 83%) and post-surgical 90-day mortality for those with lung cancer 1.2% (n = 2/165). The false positive rate was 2% (n = 219/10,898) and of those with a positive result, one in two had lung cancer diagnosed (53.3%). An invasive test was required in 0.6% (n = 61/10,898) of screening attendees without lung cancer; there were no associated major complications or deaths. The benign surgical resection rate was 4.6% (n = 8/173), equating to 0.07% of the screened population.

DISCUSSION

The performance of UK-based lung cancer screening programmes, delivered within or aligned to the National Health Service, compares favourably to published clinical trial data. Reported harms, including false positive and benign surgical resection rates are low. Ongoing monitoring of screening performance is vital to ensure standards are maintained and harms minimised.

Using Electronic Medical Records to Identify Potentially Eligible Study Subjects for Lung Cancer Screening with Biomarkers

Lung cancer screening trials using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) show reduced late-stage diagnosis and mortality rates. These trials have identified high-risk groups that would benefit from screening. However, these sub-populations can be difficult to access and retain in trials. Implementation of national screening programmes further suggests that there is poor uptake in eligible populations. A new approach to participant selection may be more effective. Electronic medical records (EMRs) are a viable alternative to population-based or health registries, as they contain detailed clinical and demographic information. Trials have identified that e-screening using EMRs has improved trial retention and eligible subject identification. As such, this paper argues for greater use of EMRs in trial recruitment and screening programmes. Moreover, this opinion paper explores the current issues in and approaches to lung cancer screening, whether records can be used to identify eligible subjects for screening and the challenges that researchers face when using EMR data.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.

Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot

Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a “lung health check” (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK.

METHODS

We analysed current and former smokers aged 40-80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC).

RESULTS

Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81-0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79-0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14-1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05-2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%).

CONCLUSION

In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population‐based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk‐factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk‐based. In fact, the selection of high‐risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost‐effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk‐stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk‐based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk‐based approaches can negatively influence the trade‐off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large‐scale implementation of targeted, risk‐based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high‐risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk‐based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk‐stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.

Lung cancer screening: who pays? Who receives? The European perspectives

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and its early detection is critical to achieving a curative treatment and to reducing mortality. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a highly sensitive technique for detecting noninvasive small lung tumors in high-risk populations. We here analyze the current status of lung cancer screening (LCS) from a European point of view. With economic burden of health care in most European countries resting on the state, it is important to reduce costs of screening and improve its effectiveness. Current cost-effectiveness analyses on LCS have indicated a favorable economic profile. The most recently published analysis reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,297 per 1 life-year gained adjusted for the quality of life (QALY) and €2,944 per life-year gained, demonstrating a 90% probability of ICER being below €15,000 and a 98.1% probability of being below €25,000. Different risk models have been used to identify the target population; among these, the PLCOM2012 in particular allows for the selection of the population to be screened with high sensitivity. Risk models should also be employed to define screening intervals, which can reduce the general number of LDCT scans after the baseline round. Future perspectives of screening in a European scenario are related to the will of the policy makers to implement policy on a large scale and to improve the effectiveness of a broad screening of smoking-related disease, including cardiovascular prevention, by measuring coronary calcium score on LDCT. The employment of artificial intelligence (AI) in imaging interpretation, the use of liquid biopsies for the characterization of CT-detected undetermined nodules, and less invasive, personalized surgical treatments, will improve the effectiveness of LCS.

Participation in lung cancer screening

Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of CT screening programmes.

An update on CT screening for lung cancer: the first major targeted cancer screening programme

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose CT has been shown to be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality by two major randomised controlled trials. Lung cancer screening is set to become the largest targeted cancer screening programme globally, but the effectiveness of the programme is dependent on many different factors. This article describes the key evidence for lung cancer screening, the key factors important for optimisation and the progress towards implementation.

The challenges of implementing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries

Lung cancer accounts for an alarming human and economic burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recent landmark trials from high-income countries (HICs) by demonstrating that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening effectively reduces lung cancer mortality have engendered enthusiasm for this approach. Here we examine the effectiveness and affordability of LDCT screening from the viewpoint of LMICs. We consider resource-restricted perspectives and discuss implementation challenges and strategies to enhance the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in LMICs.

Liverpool Lung Project lung cancer risk stratification model: calibration and prospective validation

BACKGROUND

Early detection of lung cancer saves lives, as demonstrated by the two largest published low-dose CT screening trials. Optimal implementation depends on our ability to identify those most at risk.

METHODS

Version 2 of the Liverpool Lung Project risk score (LLPv2) was developed from case-control data in Liverpool and further adapted when applied for selection of subjects for the UK Lung Screening Trial. The objective was to produce version 3 (LLPv3) of the model, by calibration to national figures for 2017. We validated both LLPv2 and LLPv3 using questionnaire data from 75 958 individuals, followed up for lung cancer over 5 years. We validated both discrimination, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and absolute incidence, by comparing deciles of predicted incidence with observed incidence. We calculated proportionate difference as the percentage excess or deficit of observed cancers compared with those predicted. We also carried out Hosmer-Lemeshow tests.

RESULTS

There were 599 lung cancers diagnosed over 5 years. The discrimination of both LLPv2 and LLPv3 was significant with an area under the ROC curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.82). However, LLPv2 overestimated absolute risk in the population. The proportionate difference was -58.3% (95% CI -61.6% to -54.8%), that is, the actual number of cancers was only 42% of the number predicted.In LLPv3, calibrated to national 2017 figures, the proportionate difference was -22.0% (95% CI -28.1% to -15.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

While LLPv2 and LLPv3 have the same discriminatory power, LLPv3 improves the absolute lung cancer risk prediction and should be considered for use in further UK implementation studies.

Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives

In the past decade, the introduction of molecularly targeted agents and immune-checkpoint inhibitors has led to improved survival outcomes for patients with advanced-stage lung cancer; however, this disease remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Two large randomized controlled trials of low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening in high-risk populations - the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and NELSON - have provided evidence of a statistically significant mortality reduction in patients. LDCT-based screening programmes for individuals at a high risk of lung cancer have already been implemented in the USA. Furthermore, implementation programmes are currently underway in the UK following the success of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial, which included the Liverpool Health Lung Project, Manchester Lung Health Check, the Lung Screen Uptake Trial, the West London Lung Cancer Screening pilot and the Yorkshire Lung Screening trial. In this Review, we focus on the current evidence on LDCT-based lung cancer screening and discuss the clinical developments in high-risk populations worldwide; additionally, we address aspects such as cost-effectiveness. We present a framework to define the scope of future implementation research on lung cancer screening programmes referred to as Screening Planning and Implementation RAtionale for Lung cancer (SPIRAL).

Baseline Results of the West London lung cancer screening pilot study - Impact of mobile scanners and dual risk model utilisation

OBJECTIVES

The West London lung screening pilot aimed to identify early-stage lung cancer by targeting low-dose CT (LDCT) to high risk participants. Successful implementation of screening requires maximising participant uptake and identifying those at highest risk. As well as reporting pre-specified baseline screening metrics, additional objectives were to 1) compare participant uptake between a mobile and hospital-based CT scanner and 2) evaluate the impact on cancer detection using two lung cancer risk models.

METHODS

From primary care records, ever-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a lung health check at a hospital or mobile site. Participants with PLCO_M2012 6-yr risk ≥1.51 % and/or LLP_v2 5-yr risk ≥2.0 % were offered a LDCT. Lung cancer detection rate, stage, and recall rates are reported. Participant uptake was compared at both sites (chi-squared test). LDCT eligibility and cancer detection rate were compared between those recruited under each risk model.

RESULTS

Of 8366 potential participants invited, 1047/5135 (20.4 %) invitees responded to an invitation to the hospital site, and 702/3231 (21.7 %) to the mobile site (p = 0.14). The median distance travelled to the hospital site was less than to the mobile site (3.3 km vs 6.4 km, p < 0.01). Of 1159 participants eligible for a scan, 451/1159 (38.9 %) had a LLP_v2 ≥2.0 % only, 71/1159 (6.1 %) had a PLCO_M2012 ≥1.5 % only; 637/1159 (55.0 %) met both risk thresholds. Recall rate was 15.9 %. Lung cancer was detected in 29/1145 (2.5 %) participants scanned (stage 1, 58.6 %); 5/29 participants with lung cancer did not meet a PLCO_M2012 threshold of ≥1.51 %; all had a LLP_v2 ≥2.0 %.

CONCLUSION

Targeted screening is effective in detecting early-stage lung cancer. Similar levels of participant uptake at a mobile and fixed site scanner were demonstrated, indicating that uptake was driven by factors in addition to scanner location. The LLP_v2 model was more permissive; recruitment with PLCO_M2012 alone would have missed several cancers.

Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

Implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe: challenges and potential solutions: summary of a multidisciplinary roundtable discussion

Recent randomised trials on screening with low-dose CT have shown important reductions in lung cancer (LC) mortality and have triggered international efforts to implement LC screening. Detection rates of stage I LC with volume CT approaching 70% have been demonstrated. In April 2019 ‘ESMO Open – Cancer Horizons’ convened a roundtable discussion on the challenges and potential solutions regarding the implementation of LC screening in Europe. The expert panel reviewed the current evidence for LC screening with low-dose CT and discussed the next steps, which are covered in this article. The panel concluded that national health policy groups in Europe should start to implement CT screening as adequate evidence is available. It was recognised that there are opportunities to improve the screening process through ‘Implementation Research Programmes’.