Clinical decision-making on lung cancer investigations in primary care: a vignette study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and symptom type on general practitioners' (GP's) symptom attribution and clinical decision-making in relation to lung cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: Vignette survey with a 2×2 mixed factorial design. SETTING: A nationwide online survey exploring clinical decision-making in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 109 GPs based in the United Kingdom (UK) who were registered as responders on Dynata (an online survey platform). INTERVENTIONS: GPs were presented with four vignettes which described a patient aged 75 with a smoking history presenting with worsening symptoms (either general or respiratory) and with or without a pre-existing diagnosis of COPD. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs indicated the three most likely diagnoses (free-text) and selected four management approaches (20 pre-coded options). Attribution of symptoms to lung cancer and referral for urgent chest X-ray were primary outcomes. Alternative diagnoses and management approaches were explored as secondary outcomes. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used, including random intercepts for individual GPs. RESULTS: 422 vignettes were completed. There was no evidence for COPD status as a predictor of lung cancer attribution (OR=1.1, 95% CI=0.5-2.4, p=0.914). There was no evidence for COPD status as a predictor of urgent chest X-ray referral (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.3-1.2, p=0.12) or as a predictor when in combination with symptom type (OR=0.9, 95% CI=0.5-1.8, p=0.767). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer was identified as a possible diagnosis for persistent respiratory by only one out of five GPs, irrespective of the patients' COPD status. Increasing awareness among GPs of the link between COPD and lung cancer may increase the propensity for performing chest X-rays and referral for diagnostic testing for symptomatic patients.

Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text-message reminders and telephone patient navigation to improve the uptake of faecal immunochemical test screening among non-responders in London: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Participation in bowel cancer screening is lower in regions where there is high ethnic diversity and/or socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions, such as text message reminders and patient navigation (PN), have the potential to increase participation in these areas. As such, there is interest in the comparative effectiveness of these interventions to increase bowel cancer screening participation, as well as their relative cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will use a three-arm randomised controlled trial design to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text message reminders and PN to increase the uptake of bowel cancer screening in London. Participants will be individuals who have not returned a completed faecal immunochemical test kit within 13 weeks of receiving a routine invitation from the London bowel cancer screening hub. Participants will be randomised (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (1) usual care (ie, 'no intervention'), (2) a text message reminder at 13 weeks, followed by repeated text message reminders at 15, 17 and 19 weeks (in the event of non-response) or (3) a text message reminder at 13 weeks, followed by PN telephone calls at 15, 17 and 19 weeks in the event of non-response. The primary endpoint will be participation in bowel cancer screening, defined as 'the return of a completed kit by week 24'. Statistical analysis will use multivariate logistic regression and will incorporate pairwise comparisons of all three groups, adjusted for multiple testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals to conduct the research have been obtained from University College London's Joint Research Office (Ref: 150666), the Screening Research, Innovation and Development Advisory Committee ('RIDAC', Ref: 2223 014 BCSP Kerrison), the Health Research Authority (Ref: 22/WM/0212) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (Ref: 22/CAG/0140). Results will be conveyed to stakeholders, notably those managing the screening programme and published in peer-reviewed journals/presented at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17245519.

Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England.

BACKGROUND: Cancer burden is higher and cancer screening participation is lower among individuals living in more socioeconomically deprived areas of England, contributing to worse health outcomes and shorter life expectancy. Owing to higher multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test sensitivity for poor-prognosis cancers and greater cancer burden in groups experiencing greater deprivation, MCED screening programmes may have greater relative benefits in these groups. We modelled potential differential benefits of MCED screening between deprivation groups in England at different levels of screening participation. METHODS: We applied the interception multi-cancer screening model to cancer incidence and survival data made available by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to estimate reductions in late-stage diagnoses and cancer mortality from an MCED screening programme by deprivation group across 24 cancer types. We assessed the impact of varying the proportion of people who participated in annual screening in each deprivation group on these estimates. RESULTS: The modelled benefits of an MCED screening programme were substantial: reductions in late-stage diagnoses were 160 and 274 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Reductions in cancer mortality were 60 and 99 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Benefits were greatest in the most deprived group at every participation level and were attenuated with lower screening participation. CONCLUSIONS: For the greatest possible population benefit and to decrease health inequalities, an MCED implementation strategy should focus on enhancing equitable, informed participation, enabling equal participation across all socioeconomic deprivation groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05611632.