Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study

A Retrospective Study on the Long-Term Outcomes of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Versus Sublobar Resection in Lung Cancer: Analysis From the Scottish Cancer Registry

INTRODUCTION

 A comparison between sublobar resection and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the treatment of lung cancer is a trending topic. However, there is still a lack of strong randomized controlled trials on this subject. We believe that the National Cancer Registry can provide good insight into decision-making when comparing these two modalities of treatment.

METHODS

 The Scottish Cancer Network (SCAN) data were assessed retrospectively. These data included 2000 patients who had lung cancer between April 2013 and December 2022. We included 67 patients who had SABR (group 1) for early-stage lung cancer (T1-T2 N0) between January 2017 and December 2019 and 114 patients who had sublobar resection (group 2) for lung cancer (all comers) between April 2013 and December 2019.

RESULTS

 The average age in the SABR group was 74 years vs. 69 years in the sublobar group (P = 0.002). The overall recurrence was similar in the SABR group (29 patients) and the sublobar resection group (19 patients) (28.3% vs. 25.4%, respectively, P = 0.667). The overall survival (primary endpoint) was significantly better with patients who were treated with surgery than SABR (85.15 vs. 60.14 months, P = 0.006). The sublobar resection group showed an upgrade in staging after surgery compared to the preoperative stage on PET scan in the T stage (31 patients, 27.2%) and in the N stage (five patients, 4.3%). Patients who had SABR needed more CT scans for follow-up compared to the sublobar resection group (seven vs. four scans, respectively).

CONCLUSION

 Sublobar lung resection should remain the preferable treatment for lung cancer in patients who are suitable for resection. Large randomized controlled trials are still needed to guide treatment in patients who are suitable for both options of treatment.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework.

RESULTS

Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

"We need to work towards it, whatever it takes."-participation factors in the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: the perspectives of key stakeholders

Background

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, targeted at those at high-risk, has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality and detect cancers at an early stage. Practical, attitudinal and demographic factors can inhibit screening participation in high-risk populations. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' views about barriers and enablers (determinants) to participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) in Australia.

Methods

Twenty-four focus groups (range 2-5 participants) were conducted in 2021 using the Zoom platform. Participants were 84 health professionals, researchers, policy makers and program managers of current screening programs. Focus groups consisted of a structured presentation with facilitated discussion lasting about 1 hour. The content was analysed thematically and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Screening determinants were identified across each stage of the proposed screening and assessment pathway. Challenges included participant factors such as encouraging participation for individuals at high-risk, whilst ensuring that access and equity issues were carefully considered in program design. The development of awareness campaigns that engaged LCS participants and health professionals, as well as streamlined referral processes for initial entry and follow-up, were strongly advocated for. Considering practical factors included the use of mobile vans in convenient locations.

Conclusions

Participants reported that LCS in Australia was acceptable and feasible. Participants identified a complex set of determinants across the proposed screening and assessment pathway. Strategies that enable the best chance for program success must be identified prior to implementation of a national LCS program.

The impact of rurality on patient experience and diagnostic pathway intervals in Scotland's cancer patients: Further results from a national cancer diagnosis audit

BACKGROUND

In Scotland 17 % of the population reside rurally and previous research has demonstrated worse cancer outcomes in this group. The underlying reason for this is unclear. This study aims to determine whether patient presenting factors, GP consultation factors or the diagnostic pathways differ between urban and rural patients within Scotland.

METHODS

This study combined two Scottish National Cancer Diagnosis Audits. Participating GPs collected data on the diagnostic pathway from primary to secondary care for cancer patients diagnosed during the audit period. Using the Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, patients were designated as rural or urban dwellers and compared in descriptive analyses. Key cancer intervals (primary, diagnostic, secondary and treatment interval) were compared between urban and rural dwellers with an additional adjusted analysis for the main cancer sites.

RESULTS

A total of 4309 cancer diagnoses were included in the study; 22 % were in patients from rural locations. Rural patients had significantly more consultations and investigations prior to referral than their urban counterparts. There was no difference in prolonged cancer pathways between the two groups except in lung cancer patients where rural patients had a significantly increased odds of a diagnostic interval of >90 days.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest differences in the interaction between patients and GPs prior to referral in urban and rural settings. However, this does not appear to lead to prolonged patient pathways, except in lung cancer. Further research is needed to determine whether this delay is clinically significant and contributing to poorer outcomes in Scottish rural dwellers with lung cancer.

Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland.

METHODS

We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.