Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

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.

Feasibility of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance with Prolaris® testing.

Objectives: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 in active surveillance (AS) low/favourable intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients with Prolaris® testing. Patients and Methods: Newly-diagnosed low/favourable intermediate risk PCa patients (PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≤2, maximum biopsy core length <10 mm, clinical stage ≤cT2c) were recruited into a multi-centre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (ISRCTN91422391, NCT03103152). Participants were randomised to oral low dose (100 mg), standard dose (300 mg) aspirin or placebo and/or vitamin D3 (4000 IU) versus placebo in a 3 × 2 factorial RCT design with biopsy tissue Prolaris® testing. The primary endpoint was trial acceptance/entry rates. Secondary endpoints included feasibility of Prolaris® testing, 12-month disease re-assessment (imaging/biochemical/histological), and 12-month treatment adherence/safety. Disease progression was defined as any of the following (i) 50% increase in baseline PSA, (ii) new Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4/5 lesion(s) on multi-parametric MRI where no previous lesion, (iii) 33% volume increase in lesion size, or radiological upstaging to ≥T3, (iv) ISUP Grade Group upgrade or (v) 50% increase in maximum cancer core length. Results: Of 130 eligible patients, 104 (80%) accepted recruitment from seven sites over 12 months, of which 94 patients represented the per protocol population receiving treatment. Prolaris® testing was performed on 76/94 (81%) diagnostic biopsies. Twelve-month disease progression rate was 43.3%. Assessable 12-month treatment adherence in non-progressing patients to aspirin and vitamin D across all treatment arms was 91%. Two drug-attributable serious adverse events in 1 patient allocated to aspirin were identified. The study was not designed to determine differences between treatment arms. Conclusion: Recruitment of AS PCa patients into a multi-centre multi-arm placebo-controlled RCT of minimally-toxic adjunctive oral drug treatments with molecular biomarker profiling is acceptable and safe. A larger phase III study is needed to determine optimal agents, intervention efficacy, and outcome-associated biomarkers.

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.