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

Diagnoses and treatments for participants with interstitial lung abnormalities detected in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

Introduction Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are relatively common incidental findings in participants undergoing low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Some ILA are transient and inconsequential, but others represent interstitial lung disease (ILD). Lung cancer screening therefore offers the opportunity of earlier diagnosis and treatment of ILD for some screening participants.Methods The prevalence of ILA in participants in the baseline screening round of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial is reported, along with the proportion referred to a regional ILD service, eventual diagnoses, outcomes and treatments.Results Of 6650 participants undergoing screening, ILA were reported in 169 (2.5%) participants. Following review in a screening review meeting, 56 participants were referred to the ILD service for further evaluation (0.8% of all screening participants). 2 participants declined referral, 1 is currently awaiting review and the remaining 53 were confirmed as having ILD. Eventual diagnoses were idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n=14), respiratory bronchiolitis ILD (n=4), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n=2), connective tissue disease/rheumatoid arthritis-related ILD (n=4), asbestosis (n=1), idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia (n=1), sarcoidosis (n=1) and pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (n=1). Twenty five patients had unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. Overall, 10 people received pharmacotherapy (7 antifibrotics and 3 prednisolone) representing 18% of those referred to the ILD service and 0.15% of those undergoing screening. 32 people remain under surveillance in the ILD service, some of whom may require treatment in future.Discussion Lung cancer screening detects clinically significant cases of ILD allowing early commencement of disease-modifying treatment in a proportion of participants. This is the largest screening cohort to report eventual diagnoses and treatments and provides an estimate of the level of clinical activity to be expected by ILD services as lung cancer screening is implemented. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal management of screen-detected ILD.Trial registration number ISRCTN42704678

Measuring spirometry in a lung cancer screening cohort highlights possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD

Introduction 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 a 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 defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70. Results Out of 3920 LHC attendees undergoing spirometry, 17% had undiagnosed airflow obstruction 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). Out of 836 attendees with a primary care COPD code who underwent spirometry, 19% did not have airflow obstruction, 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 whether any meaningful changes to treatment and outcomes occur, and 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 that this highly symptomatic group receive evidence-based interventions

Diagnosis and treatment outcomes from prebronchodilator spirometry performed alongside lung cancer screening in a Lung Health Check programme

Introduction: Incorporating spirometry into low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer may help identify people with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although the downstream impacts are not well described. Methods: Participants attending a Lung Health Check (LHC) as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial were offered spirometry alongside LDCT screening. Results were communicated to the general practitioner (GP), and those with unexplained symptomatic airflow obstruction (AO) fulfilling agreed criteria were referred to the Leeds Community Respiratory Team (CRT) for assessment and treatment. Primary care records were reviewed to determine changes to diagnostic coding and pharmacotherapy. Results: Of 2391 LHC participants undergoing prebronchodilator spirometry, 201 (8.4%) fulfilled the CRT referral criteria of which 151 were invited for further assessment. Ninety seven participants were subsequently reviewed by the CRT, 46 declined assessment and 8 had already been seen by their GP at the time of CRT contact. Overall 70 participants had postbronchodilator spirometry checked, of whom 20 (29%) did not have AO. Considering the whole cohort referred to the CRT (but excluding those without AO postbronchodilation), 59 had a new GP COPD code, 56 commenced new pharmacotherapy and 5 were underwent pulmonary rehabilitation (comprising 2.5%, 2.3% and 0.2% of the 2391 participants undergoing LHC spirometry). Conclusions: Delivering spirometry alongside lung cancer screening may facilitate earlier diagnosis of COPD. However, this study highlights the importance of confirming AO by postbronchodilator spirometry prior to diagnosing and treating patients with COPD and illustrates some downstream challenges in acting on spirometry collected during an LHC

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

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

BACKGROUND: 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 55–80 years, 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 (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.42–0.46) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54–0.62 for the most versus the 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 (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62–0.87) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62–0.98). In total, 6650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees. CONCLUSIONS: 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 socioeconomic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening