Immediate smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening: long-term outcomes from two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Immediate smoking cessation interventions delivered alongside targeted lung health checks (TLHCs) to screen for lung cancer increase self-reported abstinence at 3 months. The impact on longer term, objectively confirmed quit rates remains to be established. METHODS: We followed up participants from two clinical trials in people aged 55-75 years who smoked and took part in a TLHC. These randomised participants in the TLHC by day of attendance to either usual care (UC) (signposting to smoking cessation services) or an offer of immediate smoking cessation support including pharmacotherapy. In the QuLIT1 trial, this was delivered face to face and in QuLIT2, it was delivered remotely. Follow-up was conducted 12 months after the TLHC by telephone interview with subsequent biochemical verification of smoking cessation using exhaled CO. RESULTS: 430 people were enrolled initially (115 in QuLIT1 and 315 in QuLIT2), with 4 deaths before 12 months leaving 426 (62.1±5.27 years old and 48% women) participants for analysis. At 12 months, those randomised to attend on smoking cessation support intervention days had higher quit rates compared with UC adjusted for age, gender, deprivation, and which trial they had been in; self-reported 7-day point prevalence (20.0% vs 12.8%; adjusted OR (AOR)=1.78; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.89) and CO-verified quits (12.1% vs 4.7%; AOR=2.97; 95% CI 1.38 to 6.90). Those in the intervention arm were also more likely to report having made a quit attempt (30.2% vs UC 18.5%; AOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.15). CONCLUSION: Providing immediate smoking cessation support alongside TLHC increases long term, biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12455871.

Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot.

Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a "lung health check" (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.

Baseline Results of the West London lung cancer screening pilot study - Impact of mobile scanners and dual risk model utilisation.

OBJECTIVES: The West London lung screening pilot aimed to identify early-stage lung cancer by targeting low-dose CT (LDCT) to high risk participants. Successful implementation of screening requires maximising participant uptake and identifying those at highest risk. As well as reporting pre-specified baseline screening metrics, additional objectives were to 1) compare participant uptake between a mobile and hospital-based CT scanner and 2) evaluate the impact on cancer detection using two lung cancer risk models. METHODS: From primary care records, ever-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a lung health check at a hospital or mobile site. Participants with PLCOM2012 6-yr risk ≥1.51 % and/or LLPv2 5-yr risk ≥2.0 % were offered a LDCT. Lung cancer detection rate, stage, and recall rates are reported. Participant uptake was compared at both sites (chi-squared test). LDCT eligibility and cancer detection rate were compared between those recruited under each risk model. RESULTS: Of 8366 potential participants invited, 1047/5135 (20.4 %) invitees responded to an invitation to the hospital site, and 702/3231 (21.7 %) to the mobile site (p = 0.14). The median distance travelled to the hospital site was less than to the mobile site (3.3 km vs 6.4 km, p < 0.01). Of 1159 participants eligible for a scan, 451/1159 (38.9 %) had a LLPv2 ≥2.0 % only, 71/1159 (6.1 %) had a PLCOM2012 ≥1.5 % only; 637/1159 (55.0 %) met both risk thresholds. Recall rate was 15.9 %. Lung cancer was detected in 29/1145 (2.5 %) participants scanned (stage 1, 58.6 %); 5/29 participants with lung cancer did not meet a PLCOM2012 threshold of ≥1.51 %; all had a LLPv2 ≥2.0 %. CONCLUSION: Targeted screening is effective in detecting early-stage lung cancer. Similar levels of participant uptake at a mobile and fixed site scanner were demonstrated, indicating that uptake was driven by factors in addition to scanner location. The LLPv2 model was more permissive; recruitment with PLCOM2012 alone would have missed several cancers.

Raman spectroscopy of endoscopic colonic biopsies from patients with ulcerative colitis to identify mucosal inflammation and healing.

Raman spectroscopy was used to differentiate between mucosally healed (or quiescent) and inflamed colon tissue, as assessed endoscopically, in patients with ulcerative colitis. From the analysis of the Raman spectra of 60 biopsy tissue samples, clear differences were identified between the spectra of the quiescent and inflamed tissue. Three carotenoid peaks were found to be approximately twice as intense in the inflamed tissue. Two phospholipid peaks were found to be significantly lower in the inflamed tissue. Using multivariate statistical analysis, we show that these five peaks can be used to discriminate between endoscopically quiescent and inflamed tissue. We also correlated the Raman data with a histological assessment of the tissue. Four of the five peaks were found to be significantly different between the spectra of histologically healed (or quiescent) and histologically inflamed tissue. These findings indicate the ability of Raman spectroscopy to accurately classify colon tissue as either quiescent or inflamed, irrespective of whether an endoscopic or histological grading scheme is followed. We thus demonstrate that Raman spectroscopy could potentially be used as an early diagnosis tool for assessing the presence of mucosal healing or inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis.