Pre-diagnostic prescribing patterns in dyspnoea patients with as-yet-undiagnosed lung cancer: A longitudinal study of linked primary care and cancer registry data

Introduction: Patients with as-yet undiagnosed lung cancer (LC) can present to primary care with non-specific symptoms such as dyspnoea, often in the context of pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Related medication prescriptions pre-diagnosis might represent opportunities for earlier diagnosis, but UK evidence is limited. Consequently, we explored prescribing patterns of relevant medications in patients who presented with dyspnoea in primary care and were subsequently diagnosed with LC. // Method: Linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and National Cancer Registry data were used to identify 5434 patients with incident LC within a year of a dyspnoea presentation in primary care between 2006 and 2016. Primary care prescriptions relevant to dyspnoea management were examined: antibiotics, inhaled medications, oral steroids, and opioid analgesics. Poisson regression models estimated monthly prescribing rates during the year pre-diagnosis. Variation by COPD status (52 % pre-existing, 36 % COPD-free, 12 % new-onset) was examined. Inflection points were identified indicating when prescribing rates changed from the background rate. // Results: 63 % of patients received 1 or more relevant prescriptions 1–12 months pre-diagnosis. Pre-existing COPD patients were most prescribed inhaled medications. COPD-free and new-onset COPD patients were most prescribed antibiotics. Most patients received 2 or more relevant prescriptions. Monthly prescribing rates of all medications increased towards time of diagnosis in all patient groups and were highest in pre-existing COPD patients. Increases in prescribing activity were observed earliest in pre-existing COPD patients 5 months pre-diagnosis for inhaled medications, antibiotics, and steroids. // Conclusion: Results indicate that a diagnostic window of appreciable length exists for potential earlier LC diagnosis in some patients. Lung cancer diagnosis may be delayed if early symptoms are misattributed to COPD or other benign conditions

Guideline concordance for timely chest imaging after new presentations of dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend urgent chest X-ray for newly presenting dyspnoea or haemoptysis but there is little evidence about their implementation. METHODS: We analysed linked primary care and hospital imaging data for patients aged 30+ years newly presenting with dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care during April 2012 to March 2017. We examined guideline-concordant management, defined as General Practitioner-ordered chest X-ray/CT carried out within 2 weeks of symptomatic presentation, and variation by sociodemographic characteristic and relevant medical history using logistic regression. Additionally, among patients diagnosed with cancer we described time to diagnosis, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis by guideline-concordant status. RESULTS: In total, 22 560/162 161 (13.9%) patients with dyspnoea and 4022/8120 (49.5%) patients with haemoptysis received guideline-concordant imaging within the recommended 2-week period. Patients with recent chest imaging pre-presentation were much less likely to receive imaging (adjusted OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.14-0.18 for dyspnoea, and adjusted OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.11 for haemoptysis). History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma was also associated with lower odds of guideline concordance (dyspnoea: OR 0.234, 95% CI 0.225-0.242 and haemoptysis: 0.88, 0.79-0.97). Guideline-concordant imaging was lower among dyspnoea presenters with prior heart failure; current or ex-smokers; and those in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.The likelihood of lung cancer diagnosis within 12 months was greater among the guideline-concordant imaging group (dyspnoea: 1.1% vs 0.6%; haemoptysis: 3.5% vs 2.7%). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of receiving urgent imaging concords with the risk of subsequent cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, large proportions of dyspnoea and haemoptysis presenters do not receive prompt chest imaging despite being eligible, indicating opportunities for earlier lung cancer diagnosis

The Role of Smoking Status in Making Risk-Informed Diagnostic Decisions in the Lung Cancer Pathway: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals and Patients

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer clinical guidelines and risk tools often rely on smoking history as a significant risk factor. However, never-smokers make up 14% of the lung cancer population, and this proportion is rising. Consequently, they are often perceived as low-risk and may experience diagnostic delays. This study aimed to explore how clinicians make risk-informed diagnostic decisions for never-smokers. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 lung cancer diagnosticians, supported by data from interviews with 20 never-smoker lung cancer patients. The data were analyzed using a framework analysis based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and data-driven interpretations. RESULTS: Participants described 3 main strategies for making risk-informed decisions incorporating smoking status: guidelines, heuristics, and potential harms. Clinicians supplemented guidelines with their own heuristics for never-smokers, such as using higher thresholds for chest X-ray. Decisions were easier for patients with high-risk symptoms such as hemoptysis. Clinicians worried about overinvestigating never-smoker patients, particularly in terms of physical and psychological harms from invasive procedures or radiation. To minimize unnecessary anxiety about lung cancer risk, clinicians made efforts to downplay this. Conversely, some patients found that this caused process harms such as delays and miscommunications. CONCLUSION: Improved guidance and methods of risk differentiation for never-smokers are needed to avoid diagnostic delays, overreassurance, and clinical pessimism. This requires an improved evidence base and initiatives to increase awareness among clinicians of the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers. As the proportion of never-smoker patients increases, this issue will become more urgent. HIGHLIGHTS: Smoking status is the most common risk factor used by clinicians to guide decision making, and guidelines often focus on this factor.Some clinicians also use their own heuristics for never-smokers, and this becomes particularly relevant for patients with lower risk symptoms.Clinicians are also concerned about the potential harms and risks associated with deploying resources on diagnostics for never-smokers.Some patients find it difficult to decide whether or not to go ahead with certain procedures due to efforts made by clinicians to downplay the risk of lung cancer.Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay between smoking history, clinical decision making, and patient anxiety in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment

Measuring spirometry in a lung cancer screening cohort highlights possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Introduction: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is underdiagnosed, and measurement of spirometry alongside low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is one strategy to increase earlier diagnosis of this disease. // Methods: Ever-smokers at high risk of lung cancer were invited to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial for a Lung Health Check (LHC) comprising LDCT screening, pre-bronchodilator spirometry and smoking cessation service. In this cross-sectional study we present data on participant demographics, respiratory symptoms, lung function, emphysema on imaging and both self-reported and primary care diagnoses of COPD. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD in this population, with airflow obstruction (AO) defined as FEV1/FVC ratio <0.70. // Results: Of 3,920 LHC attendees undergoing spirometry, 17% had undiagnosed AO with respiratory symptoms, representing potentially undiagnosed COPD. Compared to those with a primary care COPD code, this population had milder symptoms, better lung function, and were more likely to be current smokers (p≤0.001 for all comparisons). Of 836 attendees with a primary care COPD code who underwent spirometry, 19% did not have AO, potentially representing misdiagnosed COPD, although symptom burden was high. // Discussion: Spirometry offered alongside LDCT screening can potentially identify cases of undiagnosed and misdiagnosed COPD. Future research should assess the downstream impact of these findings to determine if any meaningful changes to treatment and outcomes occurs, and also to assess the impact on co-delivering spirometry on other parameters of LDCT screening performance such as participation and adherence. Additionally, work is needed to better understand the aetiology of respiratory symptoms in those with misdiagnosed COPD, to ensure this highly symptomatic group receive evidence-based interventions

Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme

Introduction:Integration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this “teachable moment” is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS) will measure the effectiveness of a SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose computed tomography scan performed as part of YLST.Methods and analysis: Unless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see a Smoking Cessation Practitioner (SCP) at baseline and receive smoking cessation support over 4-weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised smoking cessation support package, including CT scan images, or continued SBP. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019 – December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated smoking cessation after 3-months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4-weeks and 12-months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4-weeks, 3-month and 12-months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact.Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website. Trial registration number: ISRCTN63825779; NIH ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0375011

Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the world's leading cause of cancer death. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% in the US National Lung Screening Trial. Here, we present the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), which will address key questions of relevance for screening implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a single-consent Zelen's design, ever-smokers aged 55-80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds will be randomised (1:1) to invitation to a telephone-based risk-assessment for a Lung Health Check or to usual care. The anticipated number randomised by household is 62 980 individuals. Responders at high risk will be invited for LDCT scanning for lung cancer on a mobile van in the community. There will be two rounds of screening at an interval of 2 years. Primary objectives are (1) measure participation rates, (2) compare the performance of PLCOM2012 (threshold ≥1.51%), Liverpool Lung Project (V.2) (threshold ≥5%) and US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for screening population selection and (3) assess lung cancer outcomes in the intervention and usual care arms. Secondary evaluations include health economics, quality of life, smoking rates according to intervention arm, screening programme performance with ancillary biomarker and smoking cessation studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Greater Manchester West research ethics committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following review by the Confidentiality Advisory Group. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and on the YLST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110

Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data

Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown.Method: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the LLPv2 and PLCOm2012 models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. Results: Over 5 and 6 years, 7,123 and 7,876 lung cancers occurred respectively from a cohort of 842,109 ever smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710) but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673–0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers.Conclusion: Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data

Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: a systematic review

Background: Despite increasing use of computed tomography (CT), chest X-ray remains the first-line investigation for suspected lung cancer in primary care in the UK. No systematic review evidence exists as to the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms. Aim: To estimate the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in symptomatic people. Design and setting: A systematic review was conducted to determine the sensitivity of chest X-ray for the detection of lung cancer. Method: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched; a grey literature search was also performed. Results: A total of 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. Almost all were of poor quality. Only one study had the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray as its primary objective. Most articles were case studies with a high risk of bias. Several were drawn from non-representative groups, for example, specific presentations, histological subtypes, or comorbidities. Only three studies had a low risk of bias. Two primary care studies reported sensitivities of 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 64.5 to 84.2%) and 79.3% (95% CI = 67.6 to 91.0%). One secondary care study reported a sensitivity of 79.7% (95% CI = 72.7 to 86.8%). Conclusion: Though there is a paucity of evidence, the highest-quality studies suggest that the sensitivity of chest X-ray for symptomatic lung cancer is only 77% to 80%. GPs should consider if further investigation is necessary in high-risk patients who have had a negative chest X-ray