BRCA awareness and testing experience in the UK Jewish population: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: 1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing. METHODS: Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-to-one semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: 32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/approach; (2) healthcare professionals' support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances.

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.

Understanding the impact of distance and disadvantage on lung cancer care and outcomes: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the third most common cancer in the UK and the leading cause of cancer mortality globally. NHS England guidance for optimum lung cancer care recommends management and treatment by a specialist team, with experts concentrated in one place, providing access to specialised diagnostic and treatment facilities. However, the complex and rapidly evolving diagnostic and treatment pathways for lung cancer, together with workforce limitations, make achieving this challenging. This place-based, behavioural science-informed qualitative study aims to explore how person-related characteristics interact with a person's location relative to specialist services to impact their engagement with the optimal lung pathway, and to compare and contrast experiences in rural, coastal, and urban communities. This study also aims to generate translatable evidence to inform the evidence-based design of a patient engagement intervention to improve lung cancer patients' and informal carers' participation in and experience of the lung cancer care pathway. METHODS: A qualitative cross-sectional interview study with people diagnosed with lung cancer < 6 months before recruitment (in receipt of surgery, radical radiotherapy, or living with advanced disease) and their informal carers. Participants will be recruited purposively from Barts Health NHS Trust and United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trusts to ensure a diverse sample across urban and rural settings. Semi-structured interviews will explore factors affecting individuals' capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with their recommended diagnostic and treatment pathway. A framework approach, informed by the COM-B model, will be used to thematically analyse facilitators and barriers to patient engagement. DISCUSSION: The study aligns with the current policy priority to ensure that people with cancer, no matter where they live, can access the best quality treatments and care. The evidence generated will be used to ensure that lung cancer services are developed to meet the needs of rural, coastal, and urban communities. The findings will inform the development of an intervention to support patient engagement with their recommended lung cancer pathway. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The study received NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 23/SC/0255) and NHS Health Research Authority (IRAS ID 328531) approval on 04/08/2023. The study was prospectively registered on Open Science Framework (16/10/2023; https://osf.io/njq48 ).

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

A systematic review on the qualitative experiences of people living with lung cancer in rural areas.

PURPOSE: To synthesize the qualitative literature exploring the experiences of people living with lung cancer in rural areas. METHODS: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers against pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data were synthesized using Thomas and Harden's framework for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research. The CASP qualitative checklist was used for quality assessment and the review was reported in accordance with the ENTREQ and PRISMA checklists. RESULTS: Nine articles were included, from which five themes were identified: (1) diagnosis and treatment pathways, (2) travel and financial burden, (3) communication and information, (4) experiences of interacting with healthcare professionals, (5) symptoms and health-seeking behaviors. Lung cancer diagnosis was unexpected for some with several reporting treatment delays and long wait times regarding diagnosis and treatment. Accessing treatment was perceived as challenging and time-consuming due to distance and financial stress. Inadequate communication of information from healthcare professionals was a common concern expressed by rural people living with lung cancer who also conveyed dissatisfaction with their healthcare professionals. Some were reluctant to seek help due to geographical distance and sociocultural factors whilst others found it challenging to identify symptoms due to comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by people with lung cancer in rural settings, through which future researchers can begin to develop tailored support to address the existing disparities that affect this population.

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.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55-80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7-22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89-9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [1-2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8-14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6-16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6-2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2-2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015). INTERPRETATION: PLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes. FUNDING: Terry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

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.

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.

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.

What are the similarities and differences in lung cancer symptom appraisal and help-seeking according to smoking status? A qualitative study with lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer in never-smokers represents a growing proportion of patients. The relationship between smoking status, symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour is complex. Little is known about cancer symptom-related health behaviours according to smoking status. The aim of the study was to explore lung cancer patients' experiences of a lung cancer diagnosis, identifying differences by smoking history. METHOD: This was a qualitative study involving telephone interviews with 40 lung cancer patients (20 never smokers, 11 former smokers and 9 current smokers). We used framework analysis to analyse the data using the Common Sense Model of Illness Self-Regulation as a theoretical framework, developed after initial analysis. RESULTS: All patients were likely to delay seeking help for symptoms in primary care regardless of smoking history, but for different reasons. Smoking history was instrumental to how individuals perceived and responded to early symptoms of lung cancer. Differences in interpretation and coping responses to new symptoms seemed to be caused by the higher presence of comorbidities due to smoking, and perceptions of the current state of health. Individuals with a smoking history reported acting with urgency in seeking help and follow up, whereas patients who experienced low levels of concern were more easily reassured by clinicians, resulting in delays. CONCLUSIONS: Never and former smokers perceive, interpret, and respond to symptoms of lung cancer differently to smokers. However, few people attribute their lung symptoms to cancer initially, even with a smoking history. Interventions that drive increased urgency and vigilance in never smokers may be effective.

Lung cancer symptom appraisal, help-seeking and diagnosis - rapid systematic review of differences between patients with and without a smoking history.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the world. A significant minority of lung cancer patients have never smoked (14% in the UK, and ranging from 10% to 25% worldwide). Current evidence suggests that never-smokers encounter delays during the diagnostic pathway, yet it is unclear how their experiences and reasons for delayed diagnoses differ from those of current and former smokers. This rapid review assessed literature about patient experiences in relation to symptom awareness and appraisal, help-seeking, and the lung cancer diagnostic pathway, comparing patients with and without a smoking history. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were searched for studies (2010-2020) that investigated experiences of the pathway to diagnosis for patients with and without a smoking history. Findings are presented using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Analysis of seven quantitative and three qualitative studies revealed that some delays during symptom appraisal and diagnosis are unique to never-smokers. Due to the strong link between smoking and lung cancer, and low awareness of non-smoking related lung cancer risk factors and symptoms, never-smokers do not perceive themselves to be at risk. Never-smokers are also likely to evaluate their experiences in comparison with other non-smoking related cancers, where prognosis is likely better, potentially leading to lower satisfaction with healthcare. CONCLUSION: Never-smokers appear to have different experiences in relation to symptom appraisal and diagnosis. However, evidence in relation to help-seeking, and what is driving diagnostic delays for never-smoker patients specifically is lacking.

The role of computer-assisted radiographer reporting in lung cancer screening programmes.

OBJECTIVES: Successful lung cancer screening delivery requires sensitive, timely reporting of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, placing a demand on radiology resources. Trained non-radiologist readers and computer-assisted detection (CADe) software may offer strategies to optimise the use of radiology resources without loss of sensitivity. This report examines the accuracy of trained reporting radiographers using CADe support to report LDCT scans performed as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). METHODS: In this observational cohort study, two radiographers independently read all LDCT performed within LSUT and reported on the presence of clinically significant nodules and common incidental findings (IFs), including recommendations for management. Reports were compared against a 'reference standard' (RS) derived from nodules identified by study radiologists without CADe, plus consensus radiologist review of any additional nodules identified by the radiographers. RESULTS: A total of 716 scans were included, 158 of which had one or more clinically significant pulmonary nodules as per our RS. Radiographer sensitivity against the RS was 68-73.7%, with specificity of 92.1-92.7%. Sensitivity for detection of proven cancers diagnosed from the baseline scan was 83.3-100%. The spectrum of IFs exceeded what could reasonably be covered in radiographer training. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the complexity of LDCT reporting requirements, including the limitations of CADe and the breadth of IFs. We are unable to recommend CADe-supported radiographers as a sole reader of LDCT scans, but propose potential avenues for further research including initial triage of abnormal LDCT or reporting of follow-up surveillance scans. KEY POINTS: • Successful roll-out of mass screening programmes for lung cancer depends on timely, accurate CT scan reporting, placing a demand on existing radiology resources. • This observational cohort study examines the accuracy of trained radiographers using computer-assisted detection (CADe) software to report lung cancer screening CT scans, as a potential means of supporting reporting workflows in LCS programmes. • CADe-supported radiographers were less sensitive than radiologists at identifying clinically significant pulmonary nodules, but had a low false-positive rate and good sensitivity for detection of confirmed cancers.

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. METHODS: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. RESULTS: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. CONCLUSION: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible. METHODS: Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

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.

Negative cancer beliefs: Socioeconomic differences from the awareness and beliefs about cancer survey.

OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic gaps in cancer mortality may be driven partially by poorer uptake of early detection behaviors among lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Lower SES groups may hold both fewer positive and more negative cancer beliefs that discourage these behaviors. We examined SES differences in positive and negative cancer beliefs in US adults. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with a population-representative sample, aged 50+, using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer instrument (N = 1425). Cancer beliefs were measured using three positively and three negatively framed items. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations between beliefs and education, which served as a marker of individual-level SES. RESULTS: Agreement with positive statements was high (>80%) and did not vary with education, while agreement with negative statements varied. Relative to adults with a bachelor's degree, adults with a high school degree or less were more likely to agree that "treatment is worse than cancer" (45.2% vs. 68.2%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.43, 99% CI = 1.50-3.94), cancer is "a death sentence" (17.4% vs. 33.2%; aOR = 2.51, 99% CI = 1.45-4.37), and they "would not want to know if I have cancer" (15.7% vs. 31.6%; aOR = 2.88, 99% CI = 1.54-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: Positive cancer statements were generally endorsed, but negative statements were more frequently endorsed by lower SES groups. Additional work is needed to understand how negative beliefs develop and coexist alongside positive beliefs. Interventions to improve detection behaviors targeting lower SES groups may benefit from focusing on reducing negative beliefs, rather than increasing positive beliefs.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Psychological outcomes of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in a multisite demonstration screening pilot: the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of psychological burden in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials may lack generalisability due to participation bias and control arms having elevated distress. METHODS: Current and former smokers (n=787, aged 60-75) within a real-world screening demonstration pilot completed measures of lung cancer worry at three time points (T0: appointment, T1: next day, T2: 3 months) and anxiety and depression at two time points (T0 and T2). A 'screening unaware' community sample (n=383) with the same age and smoking characteristics completed these measures once (T0). Mean scores were compared by sample type and LDCT result. RESULTS: Compared with the community sample (T0), mean scores were higher in the screening sample, and statistically significantly increased in adjusted analyses, for lung cancer worry at T0 and T2 (mean (M): 9.32; 95% CI 8.96 to 9.69 vs M: 11.34; 11.09 to 11.59 and M: 11.88; 11.49 to 12.27), for anxiety at T0 and T2 (M: 3.32; 2.94 to 3.70 vs M: 4.73; 4.42 to 5.04 and M: 5.78; 5.33 to 6.23) and depression at T2 (M: 3.85; 3.44 to 4.27 vs M: 4.15; 3.76 to 4.55). Scores were highest for those with indeterminate (eg, T2 anxiety M: 6.93; 5.65 to 8.21) and incidental findings (primary care follow-up M: 5.34; 4.67 to 6.02) and those ineligible for screening (M: 6.51; 5.25 to 7.77). Being female, younger, not in paid employment, not married/cohabiting with a partner and lower education predicted poorer psychological outcomes at T0, but not T2 after adjusting for baseline scores. Mean scores remained within 'normal' clinical ranges. CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was raised among high-risk individuals undergoing LDCT screening in a real-world setting, but overall differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. It will be critical to monitor the psychological impact of services longitudinally across diverse settings, including subgroups vulnerable to clinically elevated distress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Lung Screen Uptake Trial was registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy (ISRCTN) (Number: ISRCTN21774741) on 23 September 2015 and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02558101) on 22 September 2015.