Prevalence and clinical characteristics of non-malignant CT detected incidental findings in the SUMMIT lung cancer screening cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary and extrapulmonary incidental findings are frequently identified on CT scans performed for lung cancer screening. Uncertainty regarding their clinical significance and how and when such findings should be reported back to clinicians and participants persists. We examined the prevalence of non-malignant incidental findings within a lung cancer screening cohort and investigated the morbidity and relevant risk factors associated with incidental findings. We quantified the primary and secondary care referrals generated by our protocol. METHODS: The SUMMIT study (NCT03934866) is a prospective observational cohort study to examine the performance of delivering a low-dose CT (LDCT) screening service to a high-risk population. Spirometry, blood pressure, height/weight and respiratory history were assessed as part of a Lung Health Check. Individuals at high risk of lung cancer were offered an LDCT and returned for two further annual visits. This analysis is a prospective evaluation of the standardised reporting and management protocol for incidental findings developed for the study on the baseline LDCT. RESULTS: In 11 115 participants included in this analysis, the most common incidental findings were coronary artery calcification (64.2%) and emphysema (33.4%). From our protocolised management approach, the number of participants requiring review for clinically relevant findings in primary care was 1 in 20, and the number potentially requiring review in secondary care was 1 in 25. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental findings are common in lung cancer screening and can be associated with reported symptoms and comorbidities. A standardised reporting protocol allows systematic assessment and standardises onward management.

The SUMMIT Study: Utilising a written 'Next Steps' information booklet to prepare participants for potential lung cancer screening results and follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer can result in several potential outcomes of varying significance. Communication methods used in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) programmes must, therefore, ensure that participants are prepared for the range of possible results and follow-up. Here, we assess perceptions of a written preparatory information booklet provided to participants in a large LCS cohort designed to convey this information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All participants in the SUMMIT Study (NCT03934866) were provided with a results preparation information booklet, entitled 'The SUMMIT Study: Next Steps' at their baseline appointment which outlined potential results, their significance, and timelines for follow up. Results from the LDCT scan and Lung Health Check were subsequently sent by letter. Perceptions of this booklet were assessed among participants with indeterminate pulmonary findings when they attended a face-to-face appointment immediately before their three-month interval scan. Specifically, questions assessed the perceived usefulness of the booklet and the amount of information contained in it. RESULTS: 70.1% (n = 1,412/2,014) participants remembered receiving the booklet at their appointment. Of these participants, 72.0% (n = 1,017/1,412) found it quite or very useful and 68.0% (n = 960/1,412) reported that it contained the right amount of information. Older participants, those from the least deprived socioeconomic quintile and those of Black ethnicity were less likely to report finding the booklet either quite or very useful, or that it contained the right amount of information. Participants who remembered receiving the booklet were more likely to be satisfied with the process of results communication by letter. CONCLUSION: Providing written information that prepares participants for possible LDCT results and their significance appears to be a useful resource and a helpful adjunct to a written method of results communication for large scale LCS programmes.

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity). INTERPRETATION: Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response. FUNDING: GRAIL.

Growing small solid nodules in lung cancer screening: safety and efficacy of a 200 mm3 minimum size threshold for multidisciplinary team referral.

The optimal management of small but growing nodules remains unclear. The SUMMIT study nodule management algorithm uses a specific threshold volume of 200 mm3 before referral of growing solid nodules to the multidisciplinary team for further investigation is advised, with growing nodules below this threshold kept under observation within the screening programme. Malignancy risk of growing solid nodules of size >200 mm3 at initial 3-month interval scan was 58.3% at a per-nodule level, compared with 13.3% in growing nodules of size ≤200 mm3 (relative risk 4.4, 95% CI 2.17 to 8.83). The positive predictive value of a combination of nodule growth (defined as percentage volume change of ≥25%), and size >200 mm3 was 65.9% (29/44) at a cancer-per-nodule basis, or 60.5% (23/38) on a cancer-per-participant basis. False negative rate of the protocol was 1.9% (95% CI 0.33% to 9.94%). These findings support the use of a 200 mm3 minimum volume threshold for referral as effective at reducing unnecessary multidisciplinary team referrals for small growing nodules, while maintaining early-stage lung cancer diagnosis.

Utilisation of primary care electronic patient records for identification and targeted invitation of individuals to a lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility is largely determined by tobacco consumption. Primary care smoking data could guide LCS invitation and eligibility assessment. We present observational data from the SUMMIT Study, where individual self-reported smoking status was concordant with primary care records in 75.3%. However, 10.3% demonstrated inconsistencies between historic and most recent smoking status documentation. Quantified tobacco consumption was frequently missing, precluding direct LCS eligibility assessment. Primary care recorded "ever-smoker" status, encompassing both recent and historic documentation, can be used to target LCS invitation. Identifying those with missing or erroneous "never-smoker" smoking status is crucial for equitable invitation to LCS.

Detection of COPD in the SUMMIT Study lung cancer screening cohort using symptoms and spirometry.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a major comorbidity in lung cancer screening (LCS) cohorts, with a high prevalence of undiagnosed COPD. Combining symptom assessment with spirometry in this setting may enable earlier diagnosis of clinically significant COPD and facilitate increased understanding of lung cancer risk in COPD. In this study, we wished to understand the prevalence, severity, clinical phenotype and lung cancer risk of individuals with symptomatic undiagnosed COPD in a LCS cohort. METHODS: 16 010 current or former smokers aged 55-77 years attended a lung health check as part of the SUMMIT Study. A respiratory consultation and spirometry were performed alongside LCS eligibility assessment. Those with symptoms, no previous COPD diagnosis and airflow obstruction were labelled as undiagnosed COPD. Baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was performed in those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOm2012 score ≥1.3% and/or meeting USPSTF 2013 criteria). RESULTS: Nearly one in five (19.7%) met criteria for undiagnosed COPD. Compared with those previously diagnosed, those undiagnosed were more likely to be male (59.1% versus 53.2%; p<0.001), currently smoking (54.9% versus 47.6%; p<0.001) and from an ethnic minority group (p<0.001). Undiagnosed COPD was associated with less forced expiratory volume in 1 s impairment (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades 1 and 2: 85.3% versus 68.4%; p<0.001) and lower symptom/exacerbation burden (GOLD A and B groups: 95.6% versus 77.9%; p<0.001) than those with known COPD. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that airflow obstruction was an independent risk factor for lung cancer risk on baseline LDCT (adjusted OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.73-4.34; p<0.001), with a high risk seen in those with undiagnosed COPD (adjusted OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.67-4.64; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted case-finding within LCS detects high rates of undiagnosed symptomatic COPD in those most at risk. Individuals with undiagnosed COPD are at high risk for lung cancer.

Telephone risk-based eligibility assessment for low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

Eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS) requires assessment of lung cancer risk, based on smoking history alongside demographic and medical factors. Reliance on individual face-to-face eligibility assessment risks inefficiency and costliness. The SUMMIT Study introduced a telephone-based lung cancer risk assessment to guide invitation to face-to-face LCS eligibility assessment, which significantly increased the proportion of face-to-face attendees eligible for LCS. However, levels of agreement between phone screener and in-person responses were lower in younger individuals and minority ethnic groups. Telephone-based risk assessment is an efficient way to optimise selection for LCS appointments but requires further iteration to ensure an equitable approach.

The reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a lung cancer screening setting.

OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary nodules are commonly found in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS), with results typically communicated by face-to-face or telephone consultation. Providing LCS on a population basis requires resource efficient and scalabe communication methods. Written communication provides one such method. Here, we assess participant satisfaction with this approach in a LCS setting and investigate characteristics associated with dissatisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SUMMIT Study is a prospective observational cohort study which aims to assess the implementation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) scanning for LCS in a high-risk population and validate a multi-cancer early detection blood test (NCT03934866). Participants with indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring a three-month interval LDCT were informed of their result by postal letter and given a face-to-face appointment with a study practitioner at their interval LDCT appointment. At this appointment, having previously received their results letter, participants were verbally asked questions to assess their satisfaction with, and preferences for, methods of results communication. RESULTS: 1,900 participants were included in the analysis. 82.8% (n = 1573) were satisfied with receiving their results by letter, with 2.9% (n = 55) reporting dissatisfaction. 86.3% (n = 1640) stated it was their preferred communication method and 77.3% (n = 1469) reported that their letter contained the right amount of information. Participants from less deprived socioeconomic quintiles were more likely to report that the letter contained insufficient information and individuals aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to do so. Although 13.7% (n = 261) participants had discussed their results with their General Practitioner (GP) prior to the study visit, 83.9% (n = 219) of these participants were satisfied with receiving results by letter, with the same proportion preferring this communication method. CONCLUSION: We report high participant satisfaction with the reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a LCS setting. We believe this provides a feasible route forward for large-scale screening programmes.