Guideline concordance for timely chest imaging after new presentations of dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend urgent chest X-ray for newly presenting dyspnoea or haemoptysis but there is little evidence about their implementation. METHODS: We analysed linked primary care and hospital imaging data for patients aged 30+ years newly presenting with dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care during April 2012 to March 2017. We examined guideline-concordant management, defined as General Practitioner-ordered chest X-ray/CT carried out within 2 weeks of symptomatic presentation, and variation by sociodemographic characteristic and relevant medical history using logistic regression. Additionally, among patients diagnosed with cancer we described time to diagnosis, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis by guideline-concordant status. RESULTS: In total, 22 560/162 161 (13.9%) patients with dyspnoea and 4022/8120 (49.5%) patients with haemoptysis received guideline-concordant imaging within the recommended 2-week period. Patients with recent chest imaging pre-presentation were much less likely to receive imaging (adjusted OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.14-0.18 for dyspnoea, and adjusted OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.11 for haemoptysis). History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma was also associated with lower odds of guideline concordance (dyspnoea: OR 0.234, 95% CI 0.225-0.242 and haemoptysis: 0.88, 0.79-0.97). Guideline-concordant imaging was lower among dyspnoea presenters with prior heart failure; current or ex-smokers; and those in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.The likelihood of lung cancer diagnosis within 12 months was greater among the guideline-concordant imaging group (dyspnoea: 1.1% vs 0.6%; haemoptysis: 3.5% vs 2.7%). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of receiving urgent imaging concords with the risk of subsequent cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, large proportions of dyspnoea and haemoptysis presenters do not receive prompt chest imaging despite being eligible, indicating opportunities for earlier lung cancer diagnosis.

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.

Short-term psychosocial outcomes of adding a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate psychological, social, and financial outcomes amongst individuals undergoing a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. A total of 500 participants within the YKST, comprising all who had an abnormal CT scan and a random sample of one-third of those with a normal scan between 14/03/2022 and 24/08/2022 were sent a questionnaire at 3 and 6 months. Outcomes included the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the short-form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels scale (EQ-5D-5L). Data were analysed using regression adjusting for participant age, sex, socioeconomic status, education, baseline quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 380 (76%) participants returned questionnaires at 3 months and 328 (66%) at 6 months. There was no difference in any outcomes between participants with a normal scan and those with abnormal scans requiring no further action. Individuals requiring initial further investigations or referral had higher scores on the negative PCQ than those with normal scans at 3 months (standardised mean difference 0.28 sd, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.54; P = 0.044). The difference was greater in those with anxiety or depression at baseline. No differences were seen at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Screening for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies using abdominal CT alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening is unlikely to cause significant lasting psychosocial or financial harm to participants with incidental findings.

Cancer Stage Compared With Mortality as End Points in Randomized Clinical Trials of Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials of cancer screening typically use cancer-specific mortality as the primary end point. The incidence of stage III-IV cancer is a potential alternative end point that may accelerate completion of randomized clinical trials of cancer screening. Objective: To compare cancer-specific mortality with stage III-IV cancer as end points in randomized clinical trials of cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This meta-analysis included 41 randomized clinical trials of cancer screening conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia published through February 19, 2024. Data extracted included numbers of participants, cancer diagnoses, and cancer deaths in the intervention and comparison groups. For each clinical trial, the effect of screening was calculated as the percentage reduction between the intervention and comparison groups in the incidence of participants with cancer-specific mortality and stage III-IV cancer. Exposures: Randomization to a cancer screening test or to a comparison group in a clinical trial of cancer screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points of cancer-specific mortality and incidence of stage III-IV cancer were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients with 95% CIs, linear regression, and fixed-effects meta-analysis. Results: The included randomized clinical trials tested benefits of screening for breast (n = 6), colorectal (n = 11), lung (n = 12), ovarian (n = 4), prostate (n = 4), and other cancers (n = 4). Correlation between reductions in cancer-specific mortality and stage III-IV cancer varied by cancer type (I2 = 65%; P = .02). Correlation was highest for trials that screened for ovarian (Pearson ρ = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.51-1.00]) and lung (Pearson ρ = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.72-0.98]) cancers, moderate for breast cancer (Pearson ρ = 0.70 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.96]), and weak for colorectal (Pearson ρ = 0.39 [95% CI, -0.27 to 0.80]) and prostate (Pearson ρ = -0.69 [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.81]) cancers. Slopes from linear regression were estimated as 1.15 for ovarian cancer, 0.75 for lung cancer, 0.40 for colorectal cancer, 0.28 for breast cancer, and -3.58 for prostate cancer, suggesting that a given magnitude of reduction in incidence of stage III-IV cancer produced different magnitudes of change in incidence of cancer-specific mortality (P for heterogeneity = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In randomized clinical trials of cancer screening, incidence of late-stage cancer may be a suitable alternative end point to cancer-specific mortality for some cancer types, but is not suitable for others. These results have implications for clinical trials of multicancer screening tests.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Evaluating multi-cancer early detection tests: an argument for the outcome of recurrence-updated stage.

The advent of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests has the potential to revolutionise the diagnosis of cancer, improving patient outcomes through early diagnosis and increased use of curative therapies. The ongoing NHS-Galleri trial is evaluating an MCED test developed by GRAIL, and is using as its primary endpoint the absolute incidence of late-stage cancer. Proponents of this outcome argue that if the test reduces the number of patients with advanced, incurable cancer, it can be reasonably assumed to be benefitting patients by reducing cancer mortality. Here, we argue that this assumption may not always hold due to the phenomenon of micro-metastatic disease, and propose an adjustment to the trial outcome so that it may better reflect the expected effect of the test on cancer mortality.

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.

The influence of postscreening follow-up time and participant characteristics on estimates of overdiagnosis from lung cancer screening trials.

We aimed to explore the underlying reasons that estimates of overdiagnosis vary across and within low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials. We conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of overdiagnosis from randomised controlled trials of LDCT screening. We then analysed the association of Ps (the excess incidence of lung cancer as a proportion of screen-detected cases) with postscreening follow-up time using a linear random effects meta-regression model. Separately, we analysed annual Ps estimates from the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial (LUSI) using exponential decay models with asymptotes. We conducted stratified analyses to investigate participant characteristics associated with Ps using the extended follow-up data from NLST. Among 12 overdiagnosis estimates from 8 trials, the postscreening follow-up ranged from 3.8 to 9.3 years, and Ps ranged from -27.0% (ITALUNG, 8.3 years follow-up) to 67.2% (DLCST, 5.0 years follow-up). Across trials, 39.1% of the variation in Ps was explained by postscreening follow-up time. The annual changes in Ps were -3.5% and -3.9% in the NLST and LUSI trials, respectively. Ps was predicted to plateau at 2.2% for NLST and 9.2% for LUSI with hypothetical infinite follow-up. In NLST, Ps increased with age from -14.9% (55-59 years) to 21.7% (70-74 years), and time trends in Ps varied by histological type. The findings suggest that differences in postscreening follow-up time partially explain variation in overdiagnosis estimates across lung cancer screening trials. Estimates of overdiagnosis should be interpreted in the context of postscreening follow-up and population characteristics.

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.

Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data.

Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown. METHOD: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. RESULTS: Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers. CONCLUSION: Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data.

Comparative accuracy and cost-effectiveness of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and positron emission tomography in the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules.

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) have a high reported accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of these. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre trial, 380 participants with an SPN (8-30 mm) and no recent history of malignancy underwent DCE-CT and PET/CT. All patients underwent either biopsy with histological diagnosis or completed CT follow-up. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT and DCE-CT. Costs and cost-effectiveness were estimated from a healthcare provider perspective using a decision-model. RESULTS: 312 participants (47% female, 68.1±9.0 years) completed the study, with 61% rate of malignancy at 2 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values for DCE-CT were 95.3% (95% CI 91.3 to 97.5), 29.8% (95% CI 22.3 to 38.4), 68.2% (95% CI 62.4% to 73.5%) and 80.0% (95% CI 66.2 to 89.1), respectively, and for PET/CT were 79.1% (95% CI 72.7 to 84.2), 81.8% (95% CI 74.0 to 87.7), 87.3% (95% CI 81.5 to 91.5) and 71.2% (95% CI 63.2 to 78.1). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for DCE-CT and PET/CT was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.85), respectively (p<0.001). Combined results significantly increased diagnostic accuracy over PET/CT alone (AUROC=0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.93), p<0.001). DCE-CT was preferred when the willingness to pay per incremental cost per correctly treated malignancy was below £9000. Above £15 500 a combined approach was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT has a superior diagnostic accuracy to DCE-CT for the diagnosis of SPNs. Combining both techniques improves the diagnostic accuracy over either test alone and could be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02013063.

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.

Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context.

BACKGROUND: Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS: An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS: Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION: An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

Supporting patients to stop smoking when they attend lung cancer screening will improve the overall benefit and value for money of the service. This study developed a booklet containing pictures of a person's own lungs and heart taken during a lung cancer screening scan. The booklet shows areas of damage to the heart and lungs caused by smoking, delivered alongside positive messages to build confidence to stop smoking and let patients know about the benefits of stopping smoking. To develop the booklet, we worked with members of public who currently or used to smoke. Eight members of public completed a survey asking about the best ways to present information about risk. Thirteen members of the public took part in focus groups to co-develop the booklet. One workshop with academic and healthcare professionals and one workshop with a public involvement panel were held to develop and finalise the booklet. Members of the public said they wanted information about the short-term benefits of quitting smoking, and that coloured drawings next to the scan picture would help them to understand what the scan picture meant. Having someone specially trained to guide them through the booklet was considered important. Being told about their risk for lung cancer in the future was off-putting and might discourage a quit attempt. We have co-developed a booklet to support people to quit smoking when they go for lung cancer screening. The booklet is currently being tested to see whether it can support people to quit smoking.

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK. METHODS: We analysed current and former smokers aged 40-80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC). RESULTS: Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81-0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79-0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14-1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05-2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%). CONCLUSION: In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.

External validation of a convolutional neural network artificial intelligence tool to predict malignancy in pulmonary nodules.

BACKGROUND: Estimation of the risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules detected by CT is central in clinical management. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve risk prediction. Here we compare the performance of an AI algorithm, the lung cancer prediction convolutional neural network (LCP-CNN), with that of the Brock University model, recommended in UK guidelines. METHODS: A dataset of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules measuring 5-15 mm was collected retrospectively from three UK hospitals for use in a validation study. Ground truth diagnosis for each nodule was based on histology (required for any cancer), resolution, stability or (for pulmonary lymph nodes only) expert opinion. There were 1397 nodules in 1187 patients, of which 234 nodules in 229 (19.3%) patients were cancer. Model discrimination and performance statistics at predefined score thresholds were compared between the Brock model and the LCP-CNN. RESULTS: The area under the curve for LCP-CNN was 89.6% (95% CI 87.6 to 91.5), compared with 86.8% (95% CI 84.3 to 89.1) for the Brock model (p≤0.005). Using the LCP-CNN, we found that 24.5% of nodules scored below the lowest cancer nodule score, compared with 10.9% using the Brock score. Using the predefined thresholds, we found that the LCP-CNN gave one false negative (0.4% of cancers), whereas the Brock model gave six (2.5%), while specificity statistics were similar between the two models. CONCLUSION: The LCP-CNN score has better discrimination and allows a larger proportion of benign nodules to be identified without missing cancers than the Brock model. This has the potential to substantially reduce the proportion of surveillance CT scans required and thus save significant resources.

SABRTooth: a randomised controlled feasibility study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible. DESIGN AND METHODS: SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

Surgery or radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer? An intention-to-treat analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer, with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) a lower morbidity alternative for patients with limited physiological reserve. Comparisons of outcomes between these treatment options are limited by competing comorbidities and differences in pre-treatment pathological information. This study aims to address these issues by assessing both overall and cancer-specific survival for presumed stage I lung cancer on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis identified all patients treated for presumed stage I lung cancer within a single large UK centre. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and combined cancer and treatment-related survival were assessed with adjustment for confounding variables using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks analyses. RESULTS: 468 patients (including 316 surgery and 99 SABR) were included in the study population. Compared with surgery, SABR was associated with inferior overall survival on multivariable Cox modelling (SABR HR 1.84 (95% CI 1.32-2.57)), but there was no difference in cancer-specific survival (SABR HR 1.47 (95% CI 0.80-2.69)) or combined cancer and treatment-related survival (SABR HR 1.27 (95% CI 0.74-2.17)). Combined cancer and treatment-related death was no different between SABR and surgery on Fine-Gray competing risks multivariable modelling (subdistribution hazard 1.03 (95% CI 0.59-1.81)). Non-cancer-related death was significantly higher in SABR than surgery (subdistribution hazard 2.16 (95% CI 1.41-3.32)). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, no difference in cancer-specific survival was observed between SABR and surgery. Further work is needed to define predictors of outcome and help inform treatment decisions.

Sequential screening for lung cancer in a high-risk group: randomised controlled trial: LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of Surveillance using sputum and imaging for the EARly detection of lung Cancer in a High-risk group.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening detects early-stage lung cancer and reduces mortality. We proposed a sequential approach targeted to a high-risk group as a potentially efficient screening strategy. METHODS: LungSEARCH was a national multicentre randomised trial. Current/ex-smokers with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were allocated (1:1) to have 5 years surveillance or not. Screened participants provided annual sputum samples for cytology and cytometry, and if abnormal were offered annual LDCT and autofluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB). Those with normal sputum provided annual samples. The primary end-point was the percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at stage I/II (nonsmall cell) or limited disease (small cell). RESULTS: 1568 participants were randomised during 2007-2011 from 10 UK centres. 85.2% of those screened provided an adequate baseline sputum sample. There were 42 lung cancers among 785 screened individuals and 36 lung cancers among 783 controls. 54.8% (23 out of 42) of screened individuals versus 45.2% (14 out of 31) of controls with known staging were diagnosed with early-stage disease (one-sided p=0.24). Relative risk was 1.21 (95% CI 0.75-1.95) or 0.82 (95% CI 0.52-1.31) for early-stage or advanced cancers, respectively. Overall sensitivity for sputum (in those randomised to surveillance) was low (40.5%) with a cumulative false-positive rate (FPR) of 32.8%. 55% of cancers had normal sputum results throughout. Among sputum-positive individuals who had AFB, sensitivity was 45.5% and cumulative FPR was 39.5%; the corresponding measures for those who had LDCT were 100% and 16.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our sequential strategy, using sputum cytology/cytometry to select high-risk individuals for AFB and LDCT, did not lead to a clear stage shift and did not improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Urokinase versus Placebo for Nondraining Malignant Pleural Effusion.

RATIONALE: Patients with malignant pleural effusion experience breathlessness, which is treated by drainage and pleurodesis. Incomplete drainage results in residual dyspnea and pleurodesis failure. Intrapleural fibrinolytics lyse septations within pleural fluid, improving drainage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intrapleural urokinase on dyspnea and pleurodesis success in patients with nondraining malignant effusion. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients with nondraining effusion were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to intrapleural urokinase (100,000 IU, three doses, 12-hourly) or matched placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Co-primary outcome measures were dyspnea (average daily 100-mm visual analog scale scores over 28 d) and time to pleurodesis failure to 12 months. Secondary outcomes were survival, hospital length of stay, and radiographic change. A total of 71 subjects were randomized (36 received urokinase, 35 placebo) from 12 U.K. centers. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. There was no difference in mean dyspnea between groups (mean difference, 3.8 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 4.4 mm; P = 0.36). Pleurodesis failure rates were similar (urokinase, 13 of 35 [37%]; placebo, 11 of 34 [32%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2; P = 0.65). Urokinase was associated with decreased effusion size visualized by chest radiography (adjusted relative improvement, -19%; 95% CI, -28 to -11%; P < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (1.6 d; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6; P = 0.049), and improved survival (69 vs. 48 d; P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Use of intrapleural urokinase does not reduce dyspnea or improve pleurodesis success compared with placebo and cannot be recommended as an adjunct to pleurodesis. Other palliative treatments should be used. Improvements in hospital stay, radiographic appearance, and survival associated with urokinase require further evaluation. Clinical trial registered with ISRCTN (12852177) and EudraCT (2008-000586-26).

Geographical variations in the use of cancer treatments are associated with survival of lung cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer outcomes in England are inferior to comparable countries. Patient or disease characteristics, healthcare-seeking behaviour, diagnostic pathways, and oncology service provision may contribute. We aimed to quantify associations between geographic variations in treatment and survival of patients in England. METHODS: We retrieved detailed cancer registration data to analyse the variation in survival of 176,225 lung cancer patients, diagnosed 2010-2014. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate survival in the two-year period following diagnosis. RESULTS: Survival improved over the period studied. The use of active treatment varied between geographical areas, with inter-quintile ranges of 9%-17% for surgical resection, 4%-13% for radical radiotherapy, and 22%-35% for chemotherapy. At 2 years, there were 188 potentially avoidable deaths annually for surgical resection, and 373 for radical radiotherapy, if all treated proportions were the same as in the highest quintiles. At the 6 month time-point, 318 deaths per year could be postponed if chemotherapy use for all patients was as in the highest quintile. The results were robust to statistical adjustments for age, sex, socio-economic status, performance status and co-morbidity. CONCLUSION: The extent of use of different treatment modalities varies between geographical areas in England. These variations are not attributable to measurable patient and tumour characteristics, and more likely reflect differences in clinical management between local multi-disciplinary teams. The data suggest improvement over time, but there is potential for further survival gains if the use of active treatments in all areas could be increased towards the highest current regional rates.