Impact of single round of low dose CT lung cancer screening on cause of mortality in different socio-economic groups: a post-hoc analysis of long-term follow-up of the UKLS trial.

BackgroundLower socioeconomic status, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), is associated with higher rates of smoking-related disease mortality, and with poor uptake of cancer screening. Here we explore whether socioeconomic status impacts the effectiveness of a single round of low-dose-CT screening, or impacts other causes of death, in the UKLS LDCT screening trial.MethodsIMD quintiles were defined according to UK-wide data, with the deprived group defined as the lower two quintiles (Q1-2) and the less deprived as Q3-5. Follow-up data was obtained for lung cancer diagnosis (median follow-up 9.1 years) and cause of death (median follow-up 9.9 years). Outcomes were compared based on IMD group and trial arm (CT or control).FindingsMore deprived quintiles were less likely to respond to the questionnaire, but this population was more likely to be selected for screening by the LLP risk model. Lower IMD quintiles benefitted from low-dose-CT screening in terms of lung cancer survival (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.16-3.08) to the same extent as upper quintiles (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.26). However, there was a bigger impact on deaths due to COPD and emphysema in more deprived quintiles.InterpretationWhilst LDCT screening benefit for lung cancer was similar, significant impact on the rates of death from other smoking-related diseases, notably COPD and emphysema, was seen primarily in lower socioeconomic groups. Future research is required to confirm how lung cancer screening benefits other disease outcomes.FundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

Impact of single round of low dose CT lung cancer screening on cause of mortality in different socio-economic groups: a post-hoc analysis of long-term follow-up of the UKLS trial.

BackgroundLower socioeconomic status, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), is associated with higher rates of smoking-related disease mortality, and with poor uptake of cancer screening. Here we explore whether socioeconomic status impacts the effectiveness of a single round of low-dose-CT screening, or impacts other causes of death, in the UKLS LDCT screening trial.MethodsIMD quintiles were defined according to UK-wide data, with the deprived group defined as the lower two quintiles (Q1-2) and the less deprived as Q3-5. Follow-up data was obtained for lung cancer diagnosis (median follow-up 9.1 years) and cause of death (median follow-up 9.9 years). Outcomes were compared based on IMD group and trial arm (CT or control).FindingsMore deprived quintiles were less likely to respond to the questionnaire, but this population was more likely to be selected for screening by the LLP risk model. Lower IMD quintiles benefitted from low-dose-CT screening in terms of lung cancer survival (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.16-3.08) to the same extent as upper quintiles (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.26). However, there was a bigger impact on deaths due to COPD and emphysema in more deprived quintiles.InterpretationWhilst LDCT screening benefit for lung cancer was similar, significant impact on the rates of death from other smoking-related diseases, notably COPD and emphysema, was seen primarily in lower socioeconomic groups. Future research is required to confirm how lung cancer screening benefits other disease outcomes.FundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

Annual mammographic screening to reduce breast cancer mortality in women from age 40 years:long-term follow-up of the UK Age RCT

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Duffy et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.BACKGROUND: There remains disagreement on the long-term effect of mammographic screening in women aged 40-49 years.OBJECTIVES: The long-term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial that offered annual mammography to women aged 40-49 years. The estimation of the effect of these mammograms on breast cancer and other-cause mortality, and the effect on incidence, with implications for overdiagnosis.DESIGN: An individually randomised controlled trial comparing offering annual mammography with offering usual care in those aged 40-48 years, and thus evaluating the effect of annual screening entirely taking place before the age of 50 years. There was follow-up for an average of 23 years for breast cancer incidence, breast cancer death and death from other causes. We analysed the mortality and incidence data by Poisson regression and estimated overdiagnosis formally using Markov process models.SETTING: Twenty-three screening units in England, Wales and Scotland within the NHS Breast Screening Programme.PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 39-41 years were recruited between 1990 and 1997. After exclusions, a total of 53,883 women were randomised to undergo screening (the intervention group) and 106,953 women were randomised to have usual care (the control group).INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group was invited to an annual breast screen with film mammography, two view at first screen and single view thereafter, up to and including the calendar year of their 48th birthday. The control group received no intervention. Both groups were invited to the National Programme from the age of 50 years, when screening is offered to all women in the UK.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase of the trial (i.e. before the first National Programme screen at 50 years), mortality from all breast cancers diagnosed after randomisation, all-cause mortality, mortality from causes other than breast cancer, and the incidence of breast cancer.RESULTS: There was a statistically significant 25% reduction in mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase at 10 years' follow-up (relative rate 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.97; p = 0.03). No reduction was observed thereafter (relative rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.22). Overall, there was a statistically non-significant 12% reduction (relative rate 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.03; p = 0.1). The absolute benefit remained approximately constant over time, at one death prevented per 1000 women screened. There was no effect of intervention on other-cause mortality (relative rate 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.07; p = 0.4). The intervention group had a higher incidence of breast cancer than the control group during the intervention phase of the trial, but incidence equalised immediately on the first National Programme screen at the age of 50-52 years.LIMITATIONS: There was 31% average non-compliance with screening and three centres had to cease screening for resource and capacity reasons.CONCLUSIONS: Annual mammographic screening at the age of 40-49 years resulted in a relative reduction in mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years. It is likely that digital mammography with two views at all screens, as practised now, could improve this further. There was no evidence of overdiagnosis in addition to that which already results from the National Programme carried out at later ages.FUTURE WORK: There is a need for research on the effects of modern mammographic protocols and additional imaging in this age group.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24647151.FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Other funding in the past has been received from the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Department of Health and Social Care, the US National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.Peer reviewe

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial):final results of a randomised, controlled trial

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.BACKGROUND: The appropriate age range for breast cancer screening remains a matter of debate. We aimed to estimate the effect of mammographic screening at ages 40-48 years on breast cancer mortality. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled trial involving 23 breast screening units across Great Britain. We randomly assigned women aged 39-41 years, using individual randomisation, stratified by general practice, in a 1:2 ratio, to yearly mammographic screening from the year of inclusion in the trial up to and including the calendar year that they reached age 48 years (intervention group), or to standard care of no screening until the invitation to their first National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) screen at approximately age 50 years (control group). Women in the intervention group were recruited by postal invitation. Women in the control group were unaware of the study. The primary endpoint was mortality from breast cancers (with breast cancer coded as the underlying cause of death) diagnosed during the intervention period, before the participant's first NHSBSP screen. To study the timing of the mortality effect, we analysed the results in different follow-up periods. Women were included in the primary comparison regardless of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis). This Article reports on long-term follow-up analysis. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN24647151. FINDINGS: 160 921 women were recruited between Oct 14, 1990, and Sept 24, 1997. 53 883 women (33·5%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 106 953 (66·5%) to the control group. Between randomisation and Feb 28, 2017, women were followed up for a median of 22·8 years (IQR 21·8-24·0). We observed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 10 years of follow-up, with 83 breast cancer deaths in the intervention group versus 219 in the control group (relative rate [RR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·58-0·97]; p=0·029). No significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 deaths versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR 0·98 [0·79-1·22]; p=0·86). INTERPRETATION: Yearly mammography before age 50 years, commencing at age 40 or 41 years, was associated with a relative reduction in breast cancer mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years, although the absolute reduction remained constant. Reducing the lower age limit for screening from 50 to 40 years could potentially reduce breast cancer mortality. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Peer reviewe

The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market

Equity crowdfunding (ECF) offers entrepreneurs an online social media marketplace where they can access numerous potential investors who, in exchange for an ownership stake, may supply them with finance. In this paper, we describe the evolution of this market in the UK. Using an inductive qualitative longitudinal research design, we analyse the emerging views of entrepreneurs and investors towards ECF. Our interviewees include large and small-scale investors, as well as market participants who have chosen not to invest or raise funds via ECF. We find that the large financial flows to entrepreneurs in the UK via the ECF platforms, nearly half a billion GBP since 2011, have probably been largely incremental to traditional sources of early stage entrepreneurial finance. Moreover, our research indicates that for the most part, investors appear to understand and appropriately evaluate the risks that they are bearing; ECF investments are perceived as a high risk, high return component within individuals’ portfolios. Investors also use their communication with peers and entrepreneurs via the ECF platform as a learning tool. On the entrepreneurs’ side, ECF allows them to test their products, to develop their brand, to build a loyal customer base and to turn customers into investors. We conclude that policymakers, with the support of a locally appropriate regulatory framework, could support equity crowdfunding as one of the market choices available for entrepreneurs looking to start or grow their ventures

GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project

Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER The PEARL project The PRU receives funding for a research programme from the Department of Health Policy Research Programm

Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening:A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population

Previous research suggests that sending non-participants a reminder letter, 1 year after their initial invitation, can improve coverage for bowel scope screening (BSS), also known as flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. We hypothesised that adding a general practitioner's (GPs) endorsement to the reminder letter could improve coverage even further. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in North West London, UK. Participants were screening-eligible men and women who had not responded to their initial BSS invitation at least 12 months prior to the trial period. Eligible adults were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter, or a standard reminder letter from June to August 2019. Logistic regression models were used to test the effect of the GP endorsement on attendance at BSS, adjusting for sex, clinical commissioning group, and local area socioeconomic deprivation. In total, 1200 participants were enrolled into the study and randomised to either the control (n = 600) or the intervention (n = 600) group. Those who received the GP-endorsed reminder letter were only slightly more likely to attend BSS than those who received the standard reminder letter (4% vs. 3%); this difference was not statistically significant (Adjusted OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.69, 2.43). Adding a GP-endorsement to the annual reminder letter did not have an effect on attendance at BSS. One possible explanation for this is that the endorsement used was not personalised enough. Future research should examine stronger GP-endorsements or other methods to promote uptake

Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) pathway navigation study: a protocol for a nested randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a pathway navigation intervention on lung cancer screening uptake

Introduction Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death globally. In 2022 the UK National Screening Committee recommended the implementation of a national targeted lung cancer screening programme, aiming to improve early diagnosis and survival rates. Research studies and services internationally consistently observe socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in screening uptake. Pathway navigation (PN) is a process through which a trained pathway navigator guides people to overcome barriers to accessing healthcare services, including screening. This nested randomised controlled trial aims to determine whether a PN intervention results in more individuals participating in lung cancer screening compared with the usual written invitation within a previous non-responder population as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST).Methods and analysis A two-arm randomised controlled trial and process evaluation nested within the YLST. Participants aged 55–80 (inclusive) who have not responded to previous postal invitations to screening will be randomised by household to receive PN or usual care (a further postal invitation to contact the screening service for a lung health check) between March 2023 and October 2024. The PN intervention includes a postal appointment notification and prearranged telephone appointment, during which a pathway navigator telephones the participant, following a four-step protocol to introduce the offer and conduct an initial risk assessment. If eligible, participants are invited to book a low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening scan. All pathway navigators receive training from behavioural psychologists on motivational interviewing and communication techniques to elicit barriers to screening attendance and offer solutions.Coprimary outcomes The number undergoing initial telephone assessment of lung cancer risk. The number undergoing an LDCT screening scan.Secondary outcomes include demographic, clinical and risk parameters of people undergoing telephone risk assessment; the number of people eligible for screening following telephone risk assessment; the number of screen-detected cancers diagnosed; costs and a mixed-methods process evaluation.Descriptive analyses will be used to present numbers, proportions and quantitative components of the process evaluation. Primary comparisons of differences between groups will be made using logistic regression. Applied thematic analysis will be used to interpret qualitative data within a conceptual framework based on the COM-B framework. A health economic analysis of the PN intervention will also be conducted.Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by the Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following the Confidentiality Advisory Group review. Results will be shared through peer-reviewed scientific journals, conference presentations and on the YLST website.Trial registration numbers ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110

Dual process theories: A key for understanding the diversification bias?

The diversification bias in repeated lotteries is the finding that a majority of participants fail to select the option offering the highest probability. This phenomenon is systematic and immune to classical manipulations (e.g. monetary rewards). We apply dual process theories and argue that the diversification bias is a consequence of System 1 (automatic, intuitive, associative) triggering a matching response, which fails to be corrected by System 2 (intentional, analytic, rational). Empirically, supporting the corrective functions of System 2 through appropriate contextual cues (describing the task as a statistical test rather than as a lottery) led to a decrease of diversification. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007Dual process theories, Diversification, Probability matching, Statistical independence, D83, D81,