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.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective Streamline C trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multimodality staging of colorectal cancer, but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in colorectal cancer. METHODS: The Streamline C trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or polyp cancer. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs), and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN43958015, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2013, and Aug 19, 2016, 1020 patients were screened for eligibility. 370 patients were recruited, 299 of whom completed the trial; 68 (23%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 67% (95% CI 56 to 78) for WB-MRI and 63% (51 to 74) for standard pathways, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (-5 to 13, p=0·51). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (95% [95% CI 92-97]) and standard pathways (93% [90-96], p=0·48). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 96% for WB-MRI and 95% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (median, 8 days [IQR 6-9]) than for the standard pathway (13 days [11-15]); a 5-day (3-7) difference. WB-MRI required fewer tests (median, one [95% CI 1 to 1]) than did standard pathways (two [2 to 2]), a difference of one (1 to 1). Mean per-patient staging costs were £216 (95% CI 211-221) for WB-MRI and £285 (260-310) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways and reduce the number of tests needed, staging time, and cost. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer: the prospective Streamline L trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC. METHODS: The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37-63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41-67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (-7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88-96]) and standard pathways (95% [91-98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12-14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17-21]); a 6-day (4-8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1-1]) and standard pathways (one [1-2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273-361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574-666) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Patient experience and perceived acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for staging colorectal and lung cancer compared with current staging scans: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience and acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) staging compared with standard scans among patients with highly suspected or known colorectal or lung cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with thematic analysis. SETTING: Patients recruited from 10 hospitals in London, East and South East England between March 2013 and July 2014. PARTICIPANTS: 51 patients (31 male, age range 40-89 years), with varying levels of social deprivation, were recruited consecutively from two parallel clinical trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of WB-MRI with standard scans for staging colorectal and lung cancer ('Streamline-C' and 'Streamline-L'). WB-MRI was offered as an additional scan as part of the trials. RESULTS: In general WB-MRI presented a greater challenge than standard scans, although all but four patients completed the WB-MRI. Key challenges were enclosed space, noise and scan duration; reduced patient tolerance was associated with claustrophobia, pulmonary symptoms and existing comorbidities. Coping strategies facilitated scan tolerance and were grouped into (1) those intended to help with physical and emotional challenges, and (2) those focused on motivation to complete the scan, for example focusing on health benefit. Our study suggests that good staff communication could reduce anxiety and boost coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Although WB-MRI was perceived as more challenging than standard scans, it was sufficiently acceptable and tolerated by most patients to potentially replace them if appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483.