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

The National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway recommends rapid progression from abnormal chest X-rays (CXRs) to CT. The impact of the more rapid reporting on the whole pathway is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of immediate reporting of CXRs requested by primary care by radiographers on the time to diagnosis of lung cancer. METHOD: People referred for CXR from primary care to a single acute district general hospital in London attended sessions that were prerandomised to either immediate radiographer (IR) reporting or standard radiographer (SR) reporting within 24 hours. CXRs were subsequently reported by radiologists blind to the radiographer reports to test the reliability of the radiographer report. Radiographer and local radiologist discordant cases were reviewed by thoracic radiologists, blinded to reporter. RESULTS: 8682 CXRs were performed between 21 June 2017 and 4 August 2018, 4096 (47.2%) for IR and 4586 (52.8%) for SR. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 49, with 27 (55.1%) for IR. The median time from CXR to diagnosis of lung cancer for IR was 32 days (IQR 19, 70) compared with 63 days (IQR 29, 78) for SR (p=0.03).8258 CXRs (95.1%) were reported by both radiographers and local radiologists. In the 1361 (16.5%) with discordance, the reviewing thoracic radiologists were equally likely to agree with local radiologist and radiographer reports. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate reporting of CXRs from primary care reduces time to diagnosis of lung cancer by half, likely due to rapid progress to CT. Radiographer reports are comparable to local radiologist reports for accuracy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN21818068. Registered on 20 June 2017

The use of Enhanced Vegetation Index for assessing access to different types of green space in epidemiological studies

Background: Exposure to green space can protect against poor health through a variety of mechanisms. However, there is heterogeneity in methodological approaches to exposure assessments which makes creating effective policy recommendations challenging. Objective: Critically evaluate the use of a satellite-derived exposure metric, the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), for assessing access to different types of green space in epidemiological studies. Methods: We used Landsat 5–8 (30 m resolution) to calculate average EVI for a 300 m radius surrounding 1.4 million households in Wales, UK for 2018. We calculated two additional measures using topographic vector data to represent access to green spaces within 300 m of household locations. The two topographic vector-based measures were total green space area stratified by type and average private garden size. We used linear regression models to test whether EVI could discriminate between publicly accessible and private green space and Pearson correlation to test associations between EVI and green space types. Results: Mean EVI for a 300 m radius surrounding households in Wales was 0.28 (IQR = 0.12). Total green space area and average private garden size were significantly positively associated with corresponding EVI measures (β = < 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.0000, 0.0000; β = 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.0001, 0.0001 respectively). In urban areas, as average garden size increases by 1 m2, EVI increases by 0.0002. Therefore, in urban areas, to see a 0.1 unit increase in EVI index score, garden size would need to increase by 500 m2. The very small β values represent no ‘measurable real-world’ associations. When stratified by type, we observed no strong associations between greenspace and EVI