Preferences for Decision Control among a High-Risk Cohort Offered Lung Cancer Screening: A Brief Report of Secondary Analyses from the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT)

Background. Personal autonomy in lung cancer screening is advocated internationally, but health systems diverge in their approach, mandating either shared decision making (with a health care professional) or individual decision making. Studies of other cancer screening programs have found that individual preferences for the level of involvement in screening decisions vary across different sociodemographic groups and that aligning approaches with individual preferences has the potential to improve uptake. Method. For the first time, we examined preferences for decision control among a cohort of UK-based high-risk lung cancer screening candidates (N = 727). We used descriptive statistics to report the distribution of preferences and chi-square tests to examine associations between decision preferences and sociodemographic variables. Results. Most (69.7%) preferred to be involved in the decision with varying degrees of input from a health care professional. Few (10.2%) wanted to make the decision alone. Preferences were also associated with educational attainment. Conclusion. These findings suggest one-size-fits-all approaches may be inadequate in meeting diverse preferences, particularly those placing sole onus on the individual. HIGHLIGHTS: Preferences for involvement in decision making about lung cancer screening are heterogeneous among high-risk individuals in the United Kingdom and vary by educational attainment.Further work is needed to understand how policy makers might implement hybrid approaches to accommodate individual preferences and optimize lung cancer screening program outcomes

A randomised controlled trial testing acceptance of practitioner-referral versus self-referral to stop smoking services within the Lung Screen Uptake Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimising smoking cessation (SC) referral strategies within lung cancer screening (LCS) could significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. This study aimed to measure acceptance of referral to SC support by either practitioner-referral or self-referral among participants attending a hospital-based lung health check appointment for LCS as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial. DESIGN: Single-blinded two-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred forty-two individuals ages 60 to 75 years, who self-reported currently smoking or had a carbon monoxide reading over 10 ppm during the lung health check appointment. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either a contact information card for self-referral to a local stop smoking service (SSS) (self-referral, n = 360) or a SSS referral made on their behalf by the nurse or trial practitioner (practitioner-referral, n = 329). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was acceptance of the practitioner-referral (defined as participants giving permission for their details to be shared with the local SSS) compared with acceptance of the self-referral (defined as participants taking the physical SSS contact information card to refer themselves to the local SSS). FINDINGS: Half (49.8%) accepted the practitioner-made referral to a local SSS, whereas most (88.5%) accepted the self-referral. The odds of accepting the practitioner-referral were statistically significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval = 0.06-0.17) than the self- referral. In analyses stratified by group, greater quit confidence, quit attempts and Black ethnicity were associated with increased acceptance within the practitioner-referral group. There were no statistically significant interactions between acceptance by referral group and any of the participants' demographic or smoking characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants in hospital-based lung cancer screening in England who self-reported smoking or met a carbon monoxide cut-off, both practitioner-referral and self-referral smoking cessation strategies were highly accepted. Although self-referral was more frequently accepted, prior evidence suggests practitioner-referrals increase quit attempts, suggesting practitioner-referrals should be the first-line strategy within lung cancer screening, with self-referral offered as an alternative

The role of computer-assisted radiographer reporting in lung cancer screening programmes

OBJECTIVES: Successful lung cancer screening delivery requires sensitive, timely reporting of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, placing a demand on radiology resources. Trained non-radiologist readers and computer-assisted detection (CADe) software may offer strategies to optimise the use of radiology resources without loss of sensitivity. This report examines the accuracy of trained reporting radiographers using CADe support to report LDCT scans performed as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). METHODS: In this observational cohort study, two radiographers independently read all LDCT performed within LSUT and reported on the presence of clinically significant nodules and common incidental findings (IFs), including recommendations for management. Reports were compared against a 'reference standard' (RS) derived from nodules identified by study radiologists without CADe, plus consensus radiologist review of any additional nodules identified by the radiographers. RESULTS: A total of 716 scans were included, 158 of which had one or more clinically significant pulmonary nodules as per our RS. Radiographer sensitivity against the RS was 68-73.7%, with specificity of 92.1-92.7%. Sensitivity for detection of proven cancers diagnosed from the baseline scan was 83.3-100%. The spectrum of IFs exceeded what could reasonably be covered in radiographer training. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the complexity of LDCT reporting requirements, including the limitations of CADe and the breadth of IFs. We are unable to recommend CADe-supported radiographers as a sole reader of LDCT scans, but propose potential avenues for further research including initial triage of abnormal LDCT or reporting of follow-up surveillance scans. KEY POINTS: • Successful roll-out of mass screening programmes for lung cancer depends on timely, accurate CT scan reporting, placing a demand on existing radiology resources. • This observational cohort study examines the accuracy of trained radiographers using computer-assisted detection (CADe) software to report lung cancer screening CT scans, as a potential means of supporting reporting workflows in LCS programmes. • CADe-supported radiographers were less sensitive than radiologists at identifying clinically significant pulmonary nodules, but had a low false-positive rate and good sensitivity for detection of confirmed cancers

Smokers' interest in a lung cancer screening programme: a national survey in England.

Following the recommendation of lung cancer screening in the US, screening committees in several European countries are reviewing the evidence for implementing national programmes. However, inadequate participation from high-risk groups poses a potential barrier to its effectiveness. The present study examined interest in a national lung cancer screening programme and modifiable attitudinal factors that may affect participation by smokers.A population-based survey of English adults (n = 1464; aged 50-70 years) investigated screening intentions in different invitation scenarios, beliefs about lung cancer, early detection and treatment, worry about lung cancer risk, and stigma. Data on smoking status and perceived chances of quitting were also collected, but eligibility for lung screening in the event of a national programme was unknown.Intentions to be screened were high in all three invitation scenarios for both current (≥ 89%) and former (≥ 94%) smokers. However, smokers were less likely to agree that early-stage survival is good (43% vs. 53%; OR: 0.64, 0.46-0.88) or be willing to have surgery for an early stage, screen-detected cancer (84% vs. 94%; OR: 0.38, 0.21-0.68), compared with former smokers. Willingness to have surgery was positively associated with screening intentions; with absolute differences of 25% and 29%. Worry about lung cancer risk was also most common among smokers (48%), and one fifth of respondents thought screening smokers was a waste of NHS money.A national lung cancer screening programme would be well-received in principle. To improve smokers' participation, care should be taken to communicate the survival benefits of early-stage diagnosis, address concerns about surgery, and minimise anxiety and stigma related to lung cancer risk

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

Implementing LDCT lung cancer screening in the UK: finding an evidence base for practical strategies

Lung Cancer accounts for the greatest number of cancer deaths globally, with poor five-year survival rates of less than 13% in the UK. This is largely due to late stage of diagnosis. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer-specific mortality but various questions on how best to implement LCS in the UK remain. This thesis examines various aspects related to the implementation of LCS and aims to inform on policy as well as future academic work. Part A used qualitative research methods to determine the information needs of LCS participants, and used this data to develop an information film which was shown to enhance knowledge and reduce decisional conflict without adversely affecting completion rates of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) examination in a randomised study. Part B used prospective observational data in an LCS demonstration pilot, the Lung Screen Uptake Trial, to evaluate the cancer and non-cancer findings. We determined that 98% of participants had high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), suggesting that detecting coronary calcium on LDCT may not add much value as almost all participants qualify for primary prevention strategies by virtue of clinical and demographic risk factors alone. We also discovered a significant burden of ‘undiagnosed’ airflow obstruction and that individuals with LDCT-detected emphysema and airflow limitation commonly have symptoms consistent with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether this can impact COPD-related outcomes and whether communicating smoking-related incidental findings detected at LCS can impact smoking cessation. Finally, we demonstrated the feasibility of LCS in the UK, and report a higher ratio of cancers to indeterminate nodules than expected from clinical trials in LCS, while maintaining a predominance of early stage disease treated with curative intent. Through this, key areas are identified within policy, resource allocation and infrastructure, targeting of which would help ensure delivery of a high quality LCS service

Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants:A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decisionmaking is required for LCS in USA, though screeningeligible individuals’ specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described. METHODSIn this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS Fatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the ‘right’ to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while falsepositive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning. CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it