What characteristics of primary care and patients are associated with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK?

Risk factors for early mortality from lung cancer: evolution over the last 20 years in the French nationwide KBP cohorts

BACKGROUND

The impact of the most recent advances, including targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, on early (3-month) mortality in lung cancer is unknown. The aims of this study were to evaluate the real-world rate of and risk factors for early mortality, as well as trends in early mortality over the last 20 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The KBP prospective observational multicenter studies have been conducted every 10 years since 2000. These studies collect data on all newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer (all stages and histologies) over 1 year in non-academic public hospital pulmonology or oncology units in France. In this study, we analyzed data on patient and tumor characteristics from participants in the KBP-2020 cohort and compared the characteristics of patients who died within 3 months of diagnosis with those of all other patients within the cohort. We also carried out a comparative analysis with the KBP-2000 and KBP-2010 cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, 8999 patients from 82 centers were included in the KBP-2020 cohort. Three-month survival data were available for 8827 patients, of whom 1792 (20.3%) had died. Risk factors for early mortality were: male sex, age >70 years, symptomatic disease at diagnosis, ever smoker, weight loss >10 kg, poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (≥1), large-cell carcinoma or not otherwise specified, and stage ≥IIIC disease. The overall 3-month mortality rate was found to have decreased significantly over the last 20 years, from 24.7% in KBP-2000 to 23.4% in KBP-2010 and 20.3% in KBP-2020 (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Early mortality among patients with lung cancer has significantly decreased over the last 20 years which may reflect recent improvements in treatments. However, early mortality remained extremely high in 2020, particularly when viewed in light of improvements in longer-term survival. Delays in lung cancer diagnosis and management could contribute to this finding.

Early mortality in German patients with lung cancer: risk factors associated with 30-and 60-day mortality

Despite therapeutic advances, early mortality in lung cancer is still prevalent. In this study, we aimed to assess risk factors for 30- and 60-day mortality in German lung cancer patients. In this retrospective cross-sectional analysis, we used data of lung cancer patients treated at LMU Hospital Munich between 2015 and 2019. We categorized patients into 30-day mortality, 60 day-mortality, and longer survival. We used Student's t-test and ANOVA to compare means and Chi2-test to compare frequencies. We used logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with a risk for early mortality. Of the 2454 lung cancer patients, 2.0% (n = 50) died within 30 and 1.7% (n = 41) within 30 to 60 days of diagnosis. Older age and advanced stage at diagnosis were significantly associated with early mortality in the univariate and the multivariate analysis. Patients in the 30-day mortality group significantly more often did not receive tumor-directed therapy. They were also more likely to die in an acute care setting compared to the 60-day mortality group. The group of patients who died unexpectedly (12.0%) was dominantly female, with a high proportion of patients with unintentional weight loss at the time of diagnosis. Our results suggest that in the treatment of patients with lung cancer there is a need for a greater focus on older patients. Moreover, physicians should pay special attention to females with recent weight loss and patients with a comorbidity of diabetes mellitus or renal impairment. Engaging a case manager focused on detecting patients with the above characteristics could help improve overall care.

Risk factors for early mortality of lung cancer patients in France: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite therapeutic advances, lung cancer remains the first cause of death from cancer. The main objective of this study was to identify risk factors associated with death within 3-months of the first hospitalization for lung cancer in France.

METHODS

This analysis included patients with a first hospitalization for lung cancer (between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018) according to diagnosis-related groups entered into the French national medical-administrative database. Clinical and socioeconomic parameters and characteristics of that first hospitalization were analyzed. A model predictive of early mortality was developed based on those variables.

RESULTS

The 144,087 included patients were 67% men; median age of 68 [interquartile range 60-76] years; 47% had metastatic disease at diagnosis; and 34% and 23%, respectively, had received systemic treatment or undergone curative surgery. The 3-month mortality was 19%, and significantly higher for those ≥70 versus <70 years old (OR 1.33, 1.22-1.45), men versus. women (OR 1.50, 1.44-1.55), those with metastatic disease at diagnosis (OR, 3.30, 3.18-3.43), first hospitalization via the emergency room (OR 1.65 1.59-1.71) and first hospitalization lasting >30 days (OR, 1.58 1.49-1.68). In contrast, no socioeconomic characteristic was associated with early mortality.

CONCLUSION

Almost 1 in 5 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in France died within 3 months post-diagnosis. Improving survival requires diagnosis at an earlier stage and better organization of diagnosis and specific care pathways.

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.

International differences in lung cancer survival by sex, histological type and stage at diagnosis: an ICBP SURVMARK-2 Study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer has a poor prognosis that varies internationally when assessed by the two major histological subgroups (non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell (SCLC)).

METHOD

236 114 NSCLC and 43 167 SCLC cases diagnosed during 2010-2014 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK were included in the analyses. One-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival (NS) was estimated by sex, histological type, stage and country.

RESULTS

One-year and 3-year NS was consistently higher for Canada and Norway, and lower for the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, irrespective of stage at diagnosis. Three-year NS for NSCLC ranged from 19.7% for the UK to 27.1% for Canada for men and was consistently higher for women (25.3% in the UK; 35.0% in Canada) partly because men were diagnosed at more advanced stages. International differences in survival for NSCLC were largest for regional stage and smallest at the advanced stage. For SCLC, 3-year NS also showed a clear female advantage with the highest being for Canada (13.8% for women; 9.1% for men) and Norway (12.8% for women; 9.7% for men).

CONCLUSION

Distribution of stage at diagnosis among lung cancer cases differed by sex, histological subtype and country, which may partly explain observed survival differences. Yet, survival differences were also observed within stages, suggesting that quality of treatment, healthcare system factors and prevalence of comorbid conditions may also influence survival. Other possible explanations include differences in data collection practice, as well as differences in histological verification, staging and coding across jurisdictions.

Associations between general practice characteristics and chest X-ray rate: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Chest X-ray (CXR) is the first-line test for lung cancer in many settings. Previous research has suggested that higher utilisation of CXR is associated with improved outcomes.

AIM

To explore the associations between characteristics of general practices and frequency of investigation with CXR.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective observational study of English general practices.

METHOD

A database was constructed of English general practices containing number of CXRs requested and data on practices for 2018, including patient and staff demographics, smoking prevalence, deprivation, and patient satisfaction indicators. Mixed-effects Poisson modelling was used to account for variation because of chance and to estimate the amount of remaining variation that could be attributed to practice and population characteristics.

RESULTS

There was substantial variation in GP CXR rates (median 34 per 1000 patients, interquartile range 26-43). Only 18% of between-practice variance in CXR rate was accounted for by recorded characteristics. Higher practice scores for continuity and communication skills, and higher proportions of smokers, Asian and mixed ethnic groups, and patients aged >65 years were associated with increased CXR rates. Higher patient satisfaction scores for access and greater proportions of male patients and patients of Black ethnicity were associated with lower CXR rates.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation was found in CXR rates beyond that expected by chance, which could not be accounted for by practices' recorded characteristics. As other research has indicated that increasing CXR rates can lead to earlier detection, supporting practices that currently investigate infrequently could be an effective strategy to improve lung cancer outcomes.

Lung cancer for the non-respiratory physician

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death globally. Delayed diagnosis is a major contributing factor to poor outcomes and remains a key challenge to overcome. While debate around the implementation of lung cancer screening for asymptomatic high-risk individuals continues, rapid access to relevant diagnostic tests is essential. The new National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway describes 'diagnostic standards of care' in an effort to implement best practice, reduce variation and improve delays in diagnosis, staging and treatment of lung cancer. Lung cancer treatment continues to develop with new surgical techniques, radiotherapy options and more drugs being licensed as part of standard treatment. We provide an overview of the core lung cancer diagnostic steps, recognition and management of acute presentations as well as the latest treatment options.

When no news is bad news: Improving diagnostic testing communication through patient engagement

Importance

Up to 17% of diagnostic test results are missed, lost or ignored despite conventional fixes such as electronic physician reminders – naïvely, patients assume: ‘No-News-is-Good-News’. These lapses can result in poor outcomes, complications, and even death. In response, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-led physician quality reporting system measure#265 emphasizes prevention. This study aims to improve the timely review of results through increasing patient engagement.

Design and Participants

Ninety patients undergoing diagnostic testing were included in this Internal Review Board (IRB)-approved study. Two groups, group-A (patients with medical chart access through our EHR, n = 40); and group-B (controls, n = 50) were included. Group-A was reminded via written AVS and EHR portal messages to ask about their test results at their next appointment. Controls were sent no reminders, mimicking the status- quo.

Main Outcomes

At subsequent visits whether patients ‘asked’ or ‘did not ask’ about their results was recorded and analyzed. Study group participants were also surveyed on their preferences for reminder communication.

Results

Patients that were sent reminders were up to twenty times more likely to ask their provider regarding their test results than the control group ( p < 0.0001). Eighty-one percent indicated that the reminders were helpful with 90% indicating they were ‘necessary’. Neither gender nor age seemed predictive factors of patient engagement.

Conclusions and Relevance

This pilot study demonstrates that engaging patients in their own care through already-existing tools (AVS, EHR portal messages) improves patient-physician communication, and could lead to lower rates of missed diagnostic tests.

Factors associated with early lung cancer mortality: a systematic review

Introduction: Despite recent therapeutic advances, lung cancer remains the primary cause of cancer deaths worldwide, and early lung mortality was poorly studied.Area covered: Early lung-cancer mortality reflects local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy) impact (localized forms), and metastatic disease evolution, comorbidities and healthcare-system accessibility. The definition of early lung cancer mortality is not consensual; thresholds range from 1 to 12 months post-diagnosis. This systematic review was undertaken to identify and analyze factors significantly associated with early lung cancer mortality. Age, male sex, non-adenocarcinoma histology, advanced stage at diagnosis and ECOG performance status are the main clinical factors of early lung cancer mortality. Active/ex-smoking also seems to favor early mortality, despite heterogeneous definitions of smoker status. For radio-chemotherapy treated locally advance disease, the early mortality rate increases according to tumor volume. Less well studied, socioeconomic characteristics (rurality and social deprivation index) yielded contradictory results, partially because definitions vary over studies. However, early lung cancer mortality is significantly higher for lower socioeconomic class patients.Expert opinion: Prospective, observational, general population studies are needed to better evaluate early lung-cancer mortality. International consensus concerning the patient-, disease- or healthcare system-linked factors of interest to be collected would facilitate comparisons among countries.

Are socio-economic inequalities in breast cancer survival explained by peri-diagnostic factors?

BACKGROUND

Patients living in more deprived localities have lower cancer survival in England, but the role of individual health status at diagnosis and the utilisation of primary health care in explaining these differentials has not been widely considered. We set out to evaluate whether pre-existing individual health status at diagnosis and primary care consultation history (peri-diagnostic factors) could explain socio-economic differentials in survival amongst women diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women aged 15-99 years diagnosed in England using linked routine data. Ecologically-derived measures of income deprivation were combined with individually-linked data from the English National Cancer Registry, Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) databases. Smoking status, alcohol consumption, BMI, comorbidity, and consultation histories were derived for all patients. Time to breast surgery was derived for women diagnosed after 2005. We estimated net survival and modelled the excess hazard ratio of breast cancer death using flexible parametric models. We accounted for missing data using multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Net survival was lower amongst more deprived women, with a single unit increase in deprivation quintile inferring a 4.4% (95% CI 1.4-8.8) increase in excess mortality. Peri-diagnostic co-variables varied by deprivation but did not explain the differentials in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that socio-economic inequalities in survival cannot be explained by consultation history or by pre-existing individual health status, as measured in primary care. Differentials in the effectiveness of treatment, beyond those measuring the inclusion of breast surgery and the timing of surgery, should be considered as part of the wider effort to reduce inequalities in premature mortality.

Chest X-ray sensitivity and lung cancer outcomes: a retrospective observational study

Background

Chest X-ray (CXR) is the first-line investigation for lung cancer in many healthcare systems. An understanding of the consequences of false-negative CXRs on time to diagnosis, stage, and survival is limited.

Aim

To determine the sensitivity of CXR for lung cancer and to compare stage at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, and survival between those with CXR that detected, or did not detect, lung cancer.

Design and setting

Retrospective observational study using routinely collected healthcare data.

Method

All patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust during 2008–2015 who had a GP-requested CXR in the year before diagnosis were categorised based on the result of the earliest CXR performed in that period. The sensitivity of CXR was calculated and analyses were performed with respect to time to diagnosis, survival, and stage at diagnosis.

Results

CXR was negative for 17.7% of patients (n = 376/2129). Median time from initial CXR to diagnosis was 43 days for those with a positive CXR and 204 days for those with a negative CXR. Of those with a positive CXR, 29.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 27.9% to 31.8%) were diagnosed at stage I or II, compared with 33.5% (95% CI = 28.8% to 38.6%) with a negative CXR.

Conclusion

GPs should consider lung cancer in patients with persistent symptoms even when CXR is negative. Despite longer duration to diagnosis for those with false-negative CXRs, there was no evidence of an adverse impact on stage at diagnosis or survival; however, this comparison is likely to be affected by confounding variables.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Treatment Patterns Among De Novo Metastatic Cancer Patients Who Died Within 1 Month of Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patterns of and factors associated with treatment for de novo metastatic cancer patients who die soon after diagnosis. In this study, we examine treatment patterns for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic lung, colorectal, breast, or pancreatic cancer who died within 1 month of diagnosis.

METHODS

We identified 100 848 adult patients in the National Cancer Database with de novo metastatic lung, colorectal, breast, and pancreatic cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 and who died within 1 month. We performed descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine receipt of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and hormonal therapy by cancer type, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Treatment substantially varied by cancer type, over time, age, insurance, and facility type. Surgery ranged from 0.4% in pancreatic to 28.3% in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, chemotherapy from 5.8% among CRC to 11% in lung and breast cancer patients, and radiotherapy from 1.3% in pancreatic to 18.7% in lung cancer patients. Use of some treatments (eg, surgery for CRC and breast cancer) progressively declined between 2004 and 2014. Compared with lung cancer patients treated at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers, those treated at community cancer centers had 48% lower odds of radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of patients diagnosed with imminently fatal de novo metastatic cancer varied markedly by cancer type and patient/facility characteristics. These variations warrant more research to better identify patients with imminently fatal de novo metastatic cancer who may not benefit from aggressive and expensive therapies.

CT screening for lung cancer: Are we ready to implement in Europe?

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is already available in certain parts of the world, such as the United States, but not yet in Europe. The recently published European position statement on lung cancer screening has recommended planning for implementation of screening to start within 18-months [1]. Pilot European programmes are already underway, primarily in the United Kingdom (UK), delivering lung cancer screening to their local populations. This review article acknowledges the evidence base for LDCT screening and will discuss the challenges that still need to be overcome in an attempt to answer the question: are we ready to implement in Europe?

Presentation of lung cancer in primary care

Survival from lung cancer has seen only modest improvements in recent decades. Poor outcomes are linked to late presentation, yet early diagnosis can be challenging as lung cancer symptoms are common and non-specific. In this paper, we examine how lung cancer presents in primary care and review roles for primary care in reducing the burden from this disease. Reducing rates of smoking remains, by far, the key strategy, but primary care practitioners (PCPs) should also be pro-active in raising awareness of symptoms, ensuring lung cancer risk data are collected accurately and encouraging reluctant patients to present. PCPs should engage in service re-design and identify more streamlined diagnostic pathways—and more readily incorporate decision support into their consulting, based on validated lung cancer risk models. Finally, PCPs should ensure they are central to recruitment in future lung cancer screening programmes—they are uniquely placed to ensure the right people are targeted for risk-based screening programmes. We are now in an era where treatments can make a real difference in early-stage lung tumours, and genuine progress is being made in this devastating illness—full engagement of primary care is vital in effecting these improvements in outcomes.

Lung health in older adults

One in five people in the UK live with lung disease. The National Taskforce for Lung Health, supported by 29 organisations, published its report in December 2018 with 43 recommendations for the UK, most of which are highly relevant to older adults. Prevention is key, especially relating to the introduction of clean air zones and air pollution alerts. Older adults may be even more prone to the adverse effects of particulate matter. Earlier and accurate diagnosis could improve survival for lung cancer, as well as health status for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and related conditions. Currently, less than half of patients on inhalers receive an annual check, and there are one in five patients with COPD who should be on home oxygen but are not. By contrast, one in three people on oxygen do not benefit. Social isolation is common in people with lung disease, who would benefit from a personalised care plan and better access to pulmonary rehabilitation, which is also of benefit to those who are frail. Patients with lung diseases are much less likely to have conversations about advance care planning than in other conditions, probably because of the unpredictable nature of their illness, and variability of symptoms. The taskforce recommends that all healthcare professionals should be able to offer basic end of life advice.

Socioeconomic Differences and Lung Cancer Survival-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The impact of socioeconomic differences on cancer survival has been investigated for several cancer types showing lower cancer survival in patients from lower socioeconomic groups. However, little is known about the relation between the strength of association and the level of adjustment and level of aggregation of the socioeconomic status measure. Here, we conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of individual and area-based measures of socioeconomic status with lung cancer survival.

Methods: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we searched for studies on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival in four electronic databases. A study was included if it reported a measure of survival in relation to education, income, occupation, or composite measures (indices). If possible, meta-analyses were conducted for studies reporting on individual and area-based socioeconomic measures.

Results: We included 94 studies in the review, of which 23 measured socioeconomic status on an individual level and 71 on an area-based level. Seventeen studies were eligible to be included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses revealed a poorer prognosis for patients with low individual income (pooled hazard ratio: 1.13, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08–1.19, reference: high income), but not for individual education. Group comparisons for hazard ratios of area-based studies indicated a poorer prognosis for lower socioeconomic groups, irrespective of the socioeconomic measure. In most studies, reported 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates across socioeconomic status groups showed decreasing rates with decreasing socioeconomic status for both individual and area-based measures. We cannot confirm a consistent relationship between level of aggregation and effect size, however, comparability across studies was hampered by heterogeneous reporting of socioeconomic status and survival measures. Only eight studies considered smoking status in the analysis.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest a weak positive association between individual income and lung cancer survival. Studies reporting on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival should consider including smoking status of the patients in their analysis and to stratify by relevant prognostic factors to further explore the reasons for socioeconomic differences. A common definition for socioeconomic status measures is desirable to further enhance comparisons between nations and across different levels of aggregation.

Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

BACKGROUND

A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire.

METHODS

Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months.

RESULTS

Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses.

CONCLUSION

Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research.

Increasing radiology capacity within the lung cancer pathway: centralised work-based support for trainee chest X-ray reporting radiographers

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic capacity and time to diagnosis are frequently identified as a barrier to improving cancer patient outcomes. Maximising the contribution of the medical imaging workforce, including reporting radiographers, is one way to improve service delivery.

METHODS

An efficient and effective centralised model of workplace training support was designed for a cohort of trainee chest X-ray (CXR) reporting radiographers. A comprehensive schedule of tutorials was planned and aligned with the curriculum of a post-graduate certificate in CXR reporting. Trainees were supported via a hub and spoke model (centralised training model), with the majority of education provided by a core group of experienced CXR reporting radiographers. Trainee and departmental feedback on the model was obtained using an online survey.

RESULTS

Fourteen trainees were recruited from eight National Health Service Trusts across London. Significant efficiencies of scale were possible with centralised support (48 h) compared to traditional workplace support (348 h). Trainee and manager feedback overall was positive. Trainees and managers both reported good trainee support, translation of learning to practice and increased confidence. Logistics, including trainee travel and release, were identified as areas for improvement.

CONCLUSION

Centralised workplace training support is an effective and efficient method to create sustainable diagnostic capacity and support improvements in the lung cancer pathway.

Recent advances in the management of lung cancer

Historically, the prognosis for individuals diagnosed with lung cancer has been bleak. However, the past 10 years have seen important advances in treatment and diagnosis which have translated into the first improvements seen in lung cancer survival. This review highlights the major advances in treatments with curative intent, systemic targeted therapies, palliative care and early diagnosis in lung cancer. We discuss the pivotal research that underpins these new technologies/strategies and their current position in clinical practice.

Recent advances in the management of lung cancer

Historically, the prognosis for individuals diagnosed with lung cancer has been bleak. However, the past 10 years have seen important advances in treatment and diagnosis which have translated into the first improvements seen in lung cancer survival. This review highlights the major advances in treatments with curative intent, systemic targeted therapies, palliative care and early diagnosis in lung cancer. We discuss the pivotal research that underpins these new technologies/strategies and their current position in clinical practice.

Geographical variations in the use of cancer treatments are associated with survival of lung cancer patients

Introduction

Lung cancer outcomes in England are inferior to comparable countries. Patient or disease characteristics, healthcare-seeking behaviour, diagnostic pathways, and oncology service provision may contribute. We aimed to quantify associations between geographic variations in treatment and survival of patients in England.

Methods

We retrieved detailed cancer registration data to analyse the variation in survival of 176,225 lung cancer patients, diagnosed 2010-2014. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate survival in the two-year period following diagnosis.

Results

Survival improved over the period studied. The use of active treatment varied between geographical areas, with inter-quintile ranges of 9%–17% for surgical resection, 4%–13% for radical radiotherapy, and 22%–35% for chemotherapy. At 2 years, there were 188 potentially avoidable deaths annually for surgical resection, and 373 for radical radiotherapy, if all treated proportions were the same as in the highest quintiles. At the 6 month time-point, 318 deaths per year could be postponed if chemotherapy use for all patients was as in the highest quintile. The results were robust to statistical adjustments for age, sex, socio-economic status, performance status and co-morbidity.

Conclusion

The extent of use of different treatment modalities varies between geographical areas in England. These variations are not attributable to measurable patient and tumour characteristics, and more likely reflect differences in clinical management between local multi-disciplinary teams. The data suggest improvement over time, but there is potential for further survival gains if the use of active treatments in all areas could be increased towards the highest current regional rates.

Immediate reporting of chest X-rays referred from general practice by reporting radiographers: a single centre feasibility study

Aim

To investigate the feasibility of radiographer-led immediate reporting of chest radiographs (CXRs) referred from general practice.

Materials and methods

This 4-month feasibility study (November 2016 to March 2017) was carried out in a single radiology department at an acute general hospital. Comparison was made between CXRs that received an immediate and routine report to determine the number of lung cancers diagnosed, time to diagnosis of lung cancer, time to computed tomography (CT), and number of urgent referrals to respiratory medicine.

Results

Forty of 186 sessions (22%) were covered by radiographer immediate reporting. Of the 1,687 CXRs referred from general practice, 558 (33.1%) received an immediate report (radiographer or radiologist). Twenty-two (of 36) CT examinations performed were following an abnormal CXR with an immediate report (mean 0.8 scans/week). Time from CXR to CT was shorter in the immediate report group (n=22 mean 0.9 days SD=2.3) compared to routine reporting (n=14; mean 6.5 SD=3.2; F=27.883, p<0.0001). Time to multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion was shorter in the immediate reporting group (mean 4.1 SD=2.9) compared to routine reporting (mean 10.6; SD=4.5; F=11.59, p<0.0001). No apparent difference was found for time to discussion at treatment MDT.

Conclusion

It is feasible to introduce a radiographer-led immediate CXR reporting service. Patients can be taken off the lung cancer pathway sooner with the introduction of radiographer immediate reporting of CXRs and this may improve outcomes for patients. A definitive study assessing outcomes is required to determine whether this will have an impact mortality and morbidity for patients.

•

Early lung cancer diagnosis is often limited by insufficient radiology capacity.

•

It is feasible to introduce immediate reporting of chest X-rays from general practice by radiographers.

•

Time to diagnosis of lung cancer can be significantly shortened with immediate chest X-ray reporting.

Impact of radiographer immediate reporting of chest X-rays from general practice on the lung cancer pathway (radioX): study protocol for a randomised control trial

Background

Diagnostic capacity and suboptimal logistics are consistently identified as barriers to timely diagnosis of cancer, especially lung cancer. Immediate chest X-ray (CXR) reporting for patients referred from general practice is advocated in the National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway to improve time to diagnosis of lung cancer and to reduce inappropriate urgent respiratory medicine referral for suspected cancer (2WW) referrals. The aim of radioX is to examine the impact of immediate reporting by radiographers of CXRs requested by general practice (GP) on lung cancer patient pathways.

Methods

A two-way comparative study that will compare the time to diagnosis of lung cancer for patients. Internal comparison will be made between those who receive an immediate radiographer report of a GP CXR compared to standard radiographer GP CXR reporting over a 12-month period. External comparison will be made with a similar, neighbouring hospital trust that does not have radiographer CXR reporting. Primary outcome is the effect on the speed of the lung cancer pathway (diagnosis of cancer or discharge). Secondary outcomes include the effect of the pathway on efficiency including the number of repeat CXRs performed in a timely fashion for suspected infection and the effect of immediate reporting of GP CXRs on patient satisfaction.

Discussion

The radioX trial will examine the hypothesis that immediate reporting of CXRs referred from GP reduces the time to diagnosis of lung cancer or discharge from the lung cancer pathway.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN21818068. Registered on 20 June 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2268-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Survival inequalities in patients with lung cancer in France: A nationwide cohort study (the TERRITOIRE Study)

The French healthcare system is a universal healthcare system with no financial barrier to access to health services and cancer drugs. The objective of the study is to investigate associations between, on the one hand, incidence and survival of patients diagnosed with lung cancer in France and, on the other, the socioeconomic deprivation and population density of their municipality of residence. A national, longitudinal analysis using data from the French National Hospital database crossed with the population density of the municipality and a social deprivation index based on census data aggregated at the municipality level. For lung cancer diagnosed at the metastatic stage, one-year and two-year survival was not associated with the population density of the municipality of residence. In contrast, mortality was higher for people living in very deprived, deprived and privileged areas compared to very privileged areas (hazard ratios at two years: 1.19 [1.13–1.25], 1.14 [1.08–1.20] and 1.10 [1.04–1.16] respectively). Similar associations are also observed in patients diagnosed with non-metastatic disease (hazard ratios at two years: 1.21 [1.13–1.30], 1.15 [1.08–1.23] and 1.10 [1.03–1.18] for people living in very deprived, deprived and privileged areas compared to very privileged areas). Despite a universal healthcare coverage, survival inequalities in patients with lung cancer can be observed in France with respect to certain socioeconomic indicators.

Knowledge or noise? Making sense of General Practitioners' and Consultant use of 2-week-wait referrals for suspected cancer

Background:

Early diagnosis and treatment of cancer is the goal of the 2-week-wait referral pathway (2WW). Variation exists between General Practice use of 2WW and rates of consultant reprioritisation of GP referral from routine to 2WW (Consultant Upgrade). We investigated variation in General Practice and Consultant Upgrade 2WW referral activity.

Methods:

Data from 185 000 referrals and 29 000 cancers recorded between 2011 and 2013 from the Northern Ireland Cancer Waiting Time database (CaPPS) were analysed to ascertain standardised referral rate ratios, detection rate (DR) (=sensitivity) and conversion rate (CR) (=positive predictive value) for Practice 2WW referrals and Consultant Upgrade 2WW. Metrics were compared using Spearman’s rank correlation co-efficients.

Results:

There was consistency in Practice and Consultant Upgrade 2WW referral rates over time, though not for annual DR (Spearman’s ρ<0.37) or CR (Spearman’s ρ<0.26). Practice 2WW referral rates correlated negatively with CR and positively with DR while correlations between DR and CR were restricted to single-year comparisons in Practice 2WW. In Consultant Upgrade, 2WW CR and DR were strongly correlated but only when the same cancers were included in both rates.

Conclusions:

Results suggest ‘random case mix’ explains previously reported associations between CR and DR with more ‘hard to detect’ cancers in some Practices than in others in a given year corresponding to lower DR and CR. Use of Practice and Consultant Upgrade 2WW referral metrics to gauge General Practice performance may be misleading.

Variations in GPs' decisions to investigate suspected lung cancer: a factorial experiment using multimedia vignettes

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer survival is low and comparatively poor in the UK. Patients with symptoms suggestive of lung cancer commonly consult primary care, but it is unclear how general practitioners (GPs) distinguish which patients require further investigation. This study examined how patients' clinical and sociodemographic characteristics influence GPs' decisions to initiate lung cancer investigations.

METHODS

A factorial experiment was conducted among a national sample of 227 English GPs using vignettes presented as simulated consultations. A multimedia-interactive website simulated key features of consultations using actors ('patients'). GP participants made management decisions online for six 'patients', whose sociodemographic characteristics systematically varied across three levels of cancer risk. In low-risk vignettes, investigation (ie, chest X-ray ordered, computerised tomography scan or respiratory consultant referral) was not indicated; in medium-risk vignettes, investigation could be appropriate; in high-risk vignettes, investigation was definitely indicated. Each 'patient' had two lung cancer-related symptoms: one volunteered and another elicited if GPs asked. Variations in investigation likelihood were examined using multilevel logistic regression.

RESULTS

GPs decided to investigate lung cancer in 74% (1000/1348) of vignettes. Investigation likelihood did not increase with cancer risk. Investigations were more likely when GPs requested information on symptoms that 'patients' had but did not volunteer (adjusted OR (AOR)=3.18; 95% CI 2.27 to 4.70). However, GPs omitted to seek this information in 42% (570/1348) of cases. GPs were less likely to investigate older than younger 'patients' (AOR=0.52; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.7) and black 'patients' than white (AOR=0.68; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

GPs were not more likely to investigate 'patients' with high-risk than low-risk cancer symptoms. Furthermore, they did not investigate everyone with the same symptoms equally. Insufficient data gathering could be responsible for missed opportunities in diagnosis.

Lung cancer in symptomatic patients presenting in primary care: a systematic review of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Around 70% of patients first presenting to specialist care have advanced disease, at which point current treatments have little effect on survival. The issue for primary care is how to recognise patients earlier and investigate appropriately. This requires an assessment of the risk of lung cancer.

AIM

The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing risk prediction tools for patients presenting in primary care with symptoms that may indicate lung cancer DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of primary care data.

METHOD

Medline, PreMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ISI Proceedings (1980 to March 2016) were searched. The final list of included studies was agreed between two of the authors, who also appraised and summarised them.

RESULTS

Seven studies with between 1482 and 2 406 127 patients were included. The tools were all based on UK primary care data, but differed in complexity of development, number/type of variables examined/included, and outcome time frame. There were four multivariable tools with internal validation area under the curves between 0.88 and 0.92. The tools all had a number of limitations, and none have been externally validated, or had their clinical and cost impact examined.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence for the recommendation of any one of the available risk prediction tools. However, some multivariable tools showed promising discrimination. What is needed to guide clinical practice is both external validation of the existing tools and a comparative study, so that the best tools can be incorporated into clinical decision tools used in primary care.

Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer

Much time, effort and investment goes into the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, with the expectation that this approach brings clinical benefits. This investment of resources has been particularly noticeable in the UK, which has, for several years, appeared near the bottom of international league tables for cancer survival in economically developed countries. In this Review, we examine expedited diagnosis of cancer from four perspectives. The first relates to the potential for clinical benefits of expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer. Limited evidence from clinical trials is available, but the considerable observational evidence suggests benefits can be obtained from this approach. The second perspective considers how expedited diagnosis can be achieved. We concentrate on data from the UK, where extensive awareness campaigns have been conducted, and initiatives in the primary-care setting, including clinical decision support, have all occurred during a period of considerable national policy change. The third section considers the most appropriate patients for cancer investigations, and the possible community settings for identification of such patients; UK national guidance for selection of patients for investigation is discussed. Finally, the health economics of expedited diagnosis are reviewed, although few studies provide definitive evidence on this topic.

Promoting Help-Seeking in Response to Symptoms amongst Primary Care Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer: A Mixed Method Study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer symptoms are vague and difficult to detect. Interventions are needed to promote early diagnosis, however health services are already pressurised. This study explored symptomology and help-seeking behaviours of primary care patients at 'high-risk' of lung cancer (≥50 years old, recent smoking history), to inform targeted interventions.

METHODS

Mixed method study with patients at eight general practitioner (GP) practices across south England. Study incorporated: postal symptom questionnaire; clinical records review of participant consultation behaviour 12 months pre- and post-questionnaire; qualitative participant interviews (n = 38) with a purposive sample.

RESULTS

A small, clinically relevant group (n = 61/908, 6.7%) of primary care patients was identified who, despite reporting potential symptoms of lung cancer in questionnaires, had not consulted a GP ≥12 months. Of nine symptoms associated with lung cancer, 53.4% (629/1172) of total respondents reported ≥1, and 35% (411/1172) reported ≥2. Most participants (77.3%, n = 686/908) had comorbid conditions; 47.8%, (n = 414/908) associated with chest and respiratory symptoms. Participant consulting behaviour significantly increased in the 3-month period following questionnaire completion compared with the previous 3-month period (p = .002), indicating questionnaires impacted upon consulting behaviour. Symptomatic non-consulters were predominantly younger, employed, with higher multiple deprivation scores than their GP practice mean. Of symptomatic non-consulters, 30% (18/61) consulted ≤1 month post-questionnaire, with comorbidities subsequently diagnosed for five participants. Interviews (n = 39) indicated three overarching differences between the views of consulting and non-consulting participants: concern over wasting their own as well as GP time; high tolerance threshold for symptoms; a greater tendency to self-manage symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

This first study to examine symptoms and consulting behaviour amongst a primary care population at 'high- risk' of lung cancer, found symptomatic patients who rarely consult GPs, might respond to a targeted symptom elicitation intervention. Such GP-based interventions may promote early diagnosis of lung cancer or other comorbidities, without burdening already pressurised services.

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and 'hard-to-reach' patients

BACKGROUND

Participation in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening offered in the trial context has been poor, especially among smokers from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds; a group for whom the risk-benefit ratio is improved due to their high risk of lung cancer. Attracting high risk participants is essential to the success and equity of any future screening programme. This study will investigate whether the observed low and biased uptake of screening can be improved using a targeted invitation strategy.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial design will be used to test whether targeted invitation materials are effective at improving engagement with an offer of lung cancer screening for high risk candidates. Two thousand patients aged 60-75 and recorded as a smoker within the last five years by their GP, will be identified from primary care records and individually randomised to receive either intervention invitation materials (which take a targeted, stepped and low burden approach to information provision prior to the appointment) or control invitation materials. The primary outcome is uptake of a nurse-led 'lung health check' hospital appointment, during which patients will be offered a spirometry test, an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading, and an LDCT if eligible. Initial data on demographics (i.e. age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation score) and smoking status will be collected in primary care and analysed to explore differences between attenders and non-attenders with respect to invitation group. Those who attend the lung health check will have further data on smoking collected during their appointment (including pack-year history, nicotine dependence and confidence to quit). Secondary outcomes will include willingness to be screened, uptake of LDCT and measures of informed decision-making to ensure the latter is not compromised by either invitation strategy.

DISCUSSION

If effective at improving informed uptake of screening and reducing bias in participation, this invitation strategy could be adopted by local screening pilots or a national programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the ISRCTN (International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number: ISRCTN21774741) on the 23rd September 2015 and the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT0255810) on the 22nd September 2015.

Early mortality in lung cancer: French prospective multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Despite the progress seen in the last decade in diagnosis and treatment, lung cancer has still a bad prognosis and a substantial number of patients died within the weeks following diagnosis. The objective of this study was to quantify early mortality in lung cancer, to identify patients who are at high risk of early decease, and to describe their management in a real world.

METHODS

Prospective observational study including consecutively all adult patients managed for primary lung cancer histologically or cytologically diagnosed in 2010 in the respiratory medicine department of one of the participating French general hospitals. Patients and cancer characteristics and first therapeutic strategy were collected at diagnosis. Dates of death were obtained from investigators or town council of the patient's birth place. All fatal cases were considered regardless of the cause of the death. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the factors significantly and independently associated with death at 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

Seven thousand fifty-one patients from 104 centres were included in the study. Vital status was obtained for 6,981 patients. Respectively, 678 (9.7%) and 1,621 (23.2%) of the 6,981 patients with available data died within 1 and 3 months following diagnosis. As compared with the other patients, they were significantly older and frailer (based on performance status [PS] and recent weight loss) and more frequently reported stage IV tumour. Overall, 64.5% (1 month) and 42.8% (3 months) of patients had no cancer therapy and less than 1% were included in a therapeutic trial.

CONCLUSION

About one in four patients died within 3 months following lung cancer diagnosis. Early mortality mainly involves frail patients with advanced cancer and is associated with lack of cancer therapy. This supports the need for early diagnosis and clinical trials in this population. Reducing early mortality to give supplementary time to patients to organise the future is a major challenge for 21(st) century physicians.

The State of Lung Cancer Research: A Global Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of years of life lost because of cancer and is associated with the highest economic burden relative to other tumor types. Research remains at the cornerstone of achieving improved outcomes of lung cancer. We present the results of a comprehensive analysis of global lung cancer research between 2004 and 2013 (10 years).

METHODS

The study used bibliometrics to undertake a quantitative analysis of research output in the 24 leading countries in cancer research internationally on the basis of articles and reviews in the Web of Science (WoS) database.

RESULTS

A total of 32,161 lung cancer research articles from 2085 different journals were analyzed. Lung cancer research represented only 5.6% of overall cancer research in 2013, a 1.2% increase since 2004. The commitment to lung cancer research has fallen in most countries apart from China and shows no correlation with lung cancer burden. A review of key research types demonstrated that diagnostics, screening, and quality of life research represent 4.3%, 1.8%, and 0.3% of total lung cancer research, respectively. The leading research types were genetics (20%), systemic therapies (17%), and prognostic biomarkers (16%). Research output is increasingly basic science, with a decrease in clinical translational research output during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings have established that relative to the huge health, social, and economic burden associated with lung cancer, the level of world research output lags significantly behind that of research on other malignancies. Commitment to diagnostics, screening, and quality of life research is much lower than to basic science and medical research. The study findings are expected to provide the requisite knowledge to guide future cancer research programs in lung cancer.

Lung cancer diagnosed following an emergency admission: Mixed methods study of the management, outcomes and needs and experiences of patients and carers

BACKGROUND

In the UK, although 40% of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed following an emergency admission (EA), data is limited on their needs and experiences as they progress through diagnostic and treatment pathways.

METHODS

Prospective data collection using medical records, questionnaires and in-depth interviews. Multivariate logistic regression explored associations between diagnosis following EA and aspects of interest. Questionnaire responses with 95% confidence intervals were compared with local and national datasets. A grounded theory approach identified patient and carer themes.

RESULTS

Of 401 patients, 154 (38%) were diagnosed following EA; 37 patients and six carers completed questionnaires and 13 patients and 10 carers were interviewed. Compared to those diagnosed electively, EA patients adjusted results found no difference in treatment recommendation, treatment intent or place of death. Time to diagnosis, review, or treatment was 7-14 days quicker but fewer EA patients had a lung cancer nurse present at diagnosis (37% vs. 62%). Palliative care needs were high (median [IQR] 21 [13-25] distressing or bothersome symptoms/issues) and various information and support needs unmet. Interviews highlighted in particular, perceived delays in obtaining investigations/specialist referral and factors influencing success or failure of the cough campaign.

CONCLUSIONS

Presentation as an EA does not appear to confer any inherent disadvantage regarding progress through lung cancer diagnostic and treatment pathways. However, given the frequent combination of advanced disease, poor performance status and prognosis, together with the high level of need and reported short-fall in care, we suggest that a specialist palliative care assessment is routinely offered.

Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Requiring Inpatient Medical Oncology Consultation: Characteristics, Referral Patterns, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occasionally are hospitalized at the time of initial medical oncology consultation. We investigated the characteristics and outcomes of this population.

METHODS

With ethics approval, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients with advanced NSCLC at our institution whose initial consult occurred while hospitalized from 2007 to 2012. This was an exploratory analysis. Multivariate survival analysis was performed using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 223 patients were included. Baseline demographics were as follows: median age, 65 years; 52% were female; median Charlson Comorbidity Index of 10; 69% performance status (PS) 3 to 4; 49% were current smokers; 90% had stage IV disease; and 52% had ≥ 5% weight loss. Only 24% received chemotherapy. Among those treated, the median time from diagnosis to chemotherapy was 43 days. Common reasons for not receiving chemotherapy included poor PS (72%) and patient choice (9%). Factors associated with receiving chemotherapy in multivariate analysis were good PS (odds ratio [OR], 9.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.55-23.26; P < .001), no leukocytosis (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.35-9.35; P = .01), and age < 70 years (OR, 6.80; 95% CI, 1.78-26.32; P = .005). Factors associated with shorter overall survival in multivariate analysis were not receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.28-3.48; P = .003), PS 3 to 4 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.26; P = .045), leukocytosis (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.44-3.13; P < .001), and thrombocytosis (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03-2.09; P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients whose first consultation with medical oncologists occurs while hospitalized are an inherently sick population. Earlier diagnosis and referral would give more patients access to treatment options before a terminal functional decline.

CT screening for lung cancer: Is the evidence strong enough?

The prevailing questions at this time in both the public mind and the clinical establishment is, do we have sufficient evidence to implement lung cancer Computed Tomography (CT) screening in Europe? If not, what is outstanding? This review addresses the twelve major areas, which are critical to any decision to implement CT screening and where we need to assess whether we have sufficient evidence to proceed to a recommendation for implementation in Europe. The readiness level of these twelve categories in 2015 have been with colour coded, where green indicates we have sufficient evidence, amber is borderline evidence and red requires further evidence. Recruitment from the 'Hard to Reach' community still remains at red, while mortality data, cost effectiveness and screening interval are all categorised as amber. The integration of smoking cessation into CT screening programmes is still considered to be category amber. The US Preventive Services Task Force have recommended that CT screening is implemented in the USA utilising the NLST criteria, apart from continuing screening to 80 years of age. The cost effectiveness of the NLST was calculated to be $81,000/QALY, however, its well recognised that the costs of medical care in the USA, is far higher than that of Europe. Medicare have agreed to cover the cost of screening but have stipulated a number of stringent requirements for inclusion. To date we do not have good CT screening mortality data available in Europe and eagerly await the publication of the NELSON trial data in 2016 and then the pooled UKLS and NELSON data thereafter. However in the meantime we should start planning for implementation in Europe, especially in the areas of the radiological service provision and accreditation, as well as identifying novel mechanisms to recruit from the hardest to reach communities.