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 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

Phosphomimetic Modulation of eNOS Improves Myocardial Reperfusion and Mimics Cardiac Postconditioning in Mice

Objective: Myocardial infarction resulting from ischemia-reperfusion injury can be reduced by cardiac postconditioning, in which blood flow is restored intermittently prior to full reperfusion. Although key molecular mechanisms and prosurvival pathways involved in postconditioning have been identified, a direct role for eNOS-derived NO in improving regional myocardial perfusion has not been shown. The objective of this study is to measure, with high temporal and spatial resolution, regional myocardial perfusion during ischemia-reperfusion and postconditioning, in order to determine the contribution of regional blood flow effects of NO to infarct size and protection. Methods and Results: We used myocardial contrast echocardiography to measure regional myocardial blood flow in mice over time. Reperfusion after myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury is improved by postconditioning, as well as by phosphomimetic eNOS modulation. Knock-in mice expressing a phosphomimetic S1176D form of eNOS showed improved myocardial reperfusion and significantly reduced infarct size. eNOS knock-out mice failed to show cardioprotection from postconditioning. The size of the no-reflow zone following ischemia-reperfusion is substantially reduced by postconditioning and by the phosphomimetic eNOS mutation. Conclusions and Significance: Using myocardial contrast echocardiography, we show that temporal dynamics of regional myocardial perfusion restoration contribute to reduced infarct size after postconditioning. eNOS has direct effects on myocardial blood flow following ischemia-reperfusion, with reduction in the size of the no-reflow zone. These results have important implications for ongoing clinical trials on cardioprotection, because the degree of protective benefit may be significantly influenced by the regional hemodynamic effects of eNOS-derived NO.American Heart Association (Predoctoral Fellowship)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (R01 NS33335)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (R01 HL57818

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Circulating Tumor Cells Detected in the Tumor-Draining Pulmonary Vein Are Associated with Disease Recurrence after Surgical Resection of NSCLC

AbstractTumor recurrence after surgical resection of NSCLC obstructs long-term disease-free survival in approximately 50% of cases. Our data suggest that combining circulating tumor cell enumeration (as single cells or clusters) in tumor-draining pulmonary vein and peripheral blood (assessed by CellSearch) at the time of NSCLC surgery better identifies those patients at higher risk for lung cancer recurrence than does peripheral circulating tumor cell number alone

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

Lung cancer in never smokers (LCINS): development of a UK national research strategy

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the others who contributed presentations to the workshop—Martin Foster, Stephen Duffy, Serena Nik-Zainal, Sanjay Popat, Mary O’Brien and Fiona Blackhall. We would also like to thank Anna Fry who helped organise and guide the authors while writing the paper.Abstract Introduction Lung cancer in never smokers (LCINS) accounts for 15% of lung cancers diagnosed in the UK, making it the 8th most common cancer. There are few robust studies specific to the LCINS population making data surrounding the incidence and mortality of LCINS incomplete, leaving many gaps in our understanding of the needs of this population. Methods To address a lack of research in this important area, the UK National Cancer Research Institute Lung Study Group (NCRI-LSG) undertook a national survey and hosted a research strategy day to define key research priorities. A wide cross section of stakeholders, including patient advocates, the charitable sector, basic and translational researchers, and multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals contributed highlighting their research priorities. Results One-hundred twenty-seven surveys were completed (52 by patients/patient advocates) prior to the strategy day. These identified themes for expert review presentations and subsequent workshop discussions at the national research strategy day, which registered 190 attendees (50 patients/patient advocates). The four key themes that emerged to form the basis of a research strategy for LCINS are (1) Raising awareness, (2) Risk assessment and early detection, (3) Disease biology, (4) Living with and beyond. Conclusion This paper summarises current evidence and important gaps in our knowledge related to LCINS. We present recommendations for a national research strategy aimed at improving outcomes for patients. </jats:sec

Lung cancer in never smokers (LCINS): development of a UK national research strategy

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the others who contributed presentations to the workshop—Martin Foster, Stephen Duffy, Serena Nik-Zainal, Sanjay Popat, Mary O’Brien and Fiona Blackhall. We would also like to thank Anna Fry who helped organise and guide the authors while writing the paper.Abstract Introduction Lung cancer in never smokers (LCINS) accounts for 15% of lung cancers diagnosed in the UK, making it the 8th most common cancer. There are few robust studies specific to the LCINS population making data surrounding the incidence and mortality of LCINS incomplete, leaving many gaps in our understanding of the needs of this population. Methods To address a lack of research in this important area, the UK National Cancer Research Institute Lung Study Group (NCRI-LSG) undertook a national survey and hosted a research strategy day to define key research priorities. A wide cross section of stakeholders, including patient advocates, the charitable sector, basic and translational researchers, and multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals contributed highlighting their research priorities. Results One-hundred twenty-seven surveys were completed (52 by patients/patient advocates) prior to the strategy day. These identified themes for expert review presentations and subsequent workshop discussions at the national research strategy day, which registered 190 attendees (50 patients/patient advocates). The four key themes that emerged to form the basis of a research strategy for LCINS are (1) Raising awareness, (2) Risk assessment and early detection, (3) Disease biology, (4) Living with and beyond. Conclusion This paper summarises current evidence and important gaps in our knowledge related to LCINS. We present recommendations for a national research strategy aimed at improving outcomes for patients. </jats:sec

Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study

Acknowledgements: The authors thank all the participants and the patient and public representatives who have contributed to this study, Phil Alsop and Philip Dondi. They also thank David Hammond for help with study co-ordination, the YLST study team and members of the YKST IDMC (Paul Nathan (Chair), Vicky Goh, Damian Hanbury and Akhtar Nasim) and TSC (Peter Sasieni (Chair), Jonathan Mant, David Nicol, Robert Rintoul, Katie Robb and Jo Waller).Funder: Kidney Cancer UK; funder-id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100023339 Objectives The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). This study explored the acceptability of the combined screening approach to participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the trial. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs and 25 participants returning for the second round of scanning within YLST, 20 who had taken up the offer of the additional abdominal CT scan and five who had declined. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose thoracic CT was considered acceptable to participants, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. The offer of the additional scan made sense and fitted well within the process, and participants could see benefits in terms of efficiency, cost and convenience both for themselves as individuals and also more widely for the NHS. Almost all participants made an instant decision at the point of initial invitation based more on trust and emotions than the information provided. Despite this, there was a clear desire for more time to decide whether to accept the scan or not. HCPs also raised concerns about the burden on the study team and wider healthcare system arising from additional workload both within the screening process and downstream following findings on the abdominal CT scan. Conclusions Adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to community-based CT screening for lung cancer is acceptable to both participants and healthcare professionals. Giving potential participants prior notice and having clear pathways for downstream management of findings will be important if it is to be offered more widely. </jats:sec

Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

QUESTION: Screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung-cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening. METHODS: Individuals aged 55 to 80, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included General Practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner. RESULTS: Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjOR 0.44, 95%CI 0.42-0.46) and socio-economic deprivation (adjOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54-0.62 most versus least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjOR 0.73, 95%CI 0.62-0.87) and socio-economic deprivation (adjOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98). In total 6,650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees. CONCLUSION: Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socio-economic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening