Increasing uptake to a lung cancer screening programme: building with communities through co-design.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake. METHODS: A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data. RESULTS: In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public. CONCLUSION: Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.

The impact of comorbidity upon determinants of outcome in patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survival from lung cancer remains poor in Scotland, UK. It is believed that comorbidity may play an important role in this. The goal of this study was to determine the value of a novel comorbidity scoring system (SCSS) and to compare it with the already established Charlson Comorbidity Index and the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS). We also wished to explore the relationship between comorbidity, mGPS and Performance Status (PS). In addition we investigated a number of standard prognostic markers and demographics. This study aimed to determine which of these factors most accurately predicted survival. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2008 all newly diagnosed lung cancer patients coming through the Multi-Disciplinary Teams (MDTs) in four Scottish Centres were included in the study. Patient demographics, World Health Organization/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, clinico-pathological features, mGPS, comorbidity and proposed primary treatment modality were recorded. Univariate survival analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier method and the log rank test. RESULTS: This large unselected population based cohort study of lung cancer patients has demonstrated that a number of important factors have significant impact in terms of survival. It has gone further by showing that the factors which influence survival are different, depending upon the stage of cancer at diagnosis and the potential treatment strategy. The novel comorbidity scoring system, the SCSS, has compared very favourably with the more established CCI. CONCLUSION: This study has identified that a variety of factors are independent prognostic determinants of outcome in lung cancer. There appear to be clear differences between the early and late stage groups.

Comorbidities in lung cancer: prevalence, severity and links with socioeconomic status and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Survival from lung cancer remains poor in Scotland, UK. Although the presence of comorbidities is known to influence outcomes, detailed quantification of comorbidities is not available in routinely collected audit or cancer registry data. The aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence and severity of comorbidities in patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer across four centres throughout Scotland using validated criteria. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2008, all patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer coming through the multidisciplinary teams in four Scottish centres were included in the study. Patient demographics, WHO/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, clinicopathological features and primary treatment modality were recorded. RESULTS: Details of 882 patients were collected prospectively. The majority of patients (87.3%) had at least one comorbidity, the most common being weight loss (53%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (43%), renal impairment (28%) and ischaemic heart disease (27%). A composite score was produced that included both number and severity of comorbidities. One in seven patients (15.3%) had severe comorbidity scores. There were statistically significant variations in comorbidity scores between treatment centres and between non-small cell lung carcinoma treatment groups. Disease stage was not associated with comorbidity score. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of multiple, severe comorbidities in Scottish patients with lung cancer, and these vary by site and treatment group. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between comorbidity scores and survival in these patients.

Simple and Objective Prediction of Survival in Patients with Lung Cancer: Staging the Host Systemic Inflammatory Response.

Background. Prediction of survival in patients diagnosed with lung cancer remains problematical. The aim of the present study was to examine the clinical utility of an established objective marker of the systemic inflammatory response, the Glasgow Prognostic Score, as the basis of risk stratification in patients with lung cancer. Methods. Between 2005 and 2008 all newly diagnosed lung cancer patients coming through the multidisciplinary meetings (MDTs) of four Scottish centres were included in the study. The details of 882 patients with a confirmed new diagnosis of any subtype or stage of lung cancer were collected prospectively. Results. The median survival was 5.6 months (IQR 4.8-6.5). Survival analysis was undertaken in three separate groups based on mGPS score. In the mGPS 0 group the most highly predictive factors were performance status, weight loss, stage of NSCLC, and palliative treatment offered. In the mGPS 1 group performance status, stage of NSCLC, and radical treatment offered were significant. In the mGPS 2 group only performance status and weight loss were statistically significant. Discussion. This present study confirms previous work supporting the use of mGPS in predicting cancer survival; however, it goes further by showing how it might be used to provide more objective risk stratification in patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

Variation in comorbidity and clinical management in patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer in four Scottish centers.

BACKGROUND: Treatment and survival rates within Scotland for patients with lung cancer seem lower than in many other European countries. No study of lung cancer has attempted to specifically investigate the association between variation in investigation, comorbidity, and treatment and outcome between different centers. METHODS: Patient demographics, World Health Organization/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and primary treatment modality were recorded. In addition to recording the comorbidities present in each patient, the severity of each comorbidity was graded on a 4-point scale (0-3) using validated severity scales. Data were collected as the patient was investigated and entered in an anonymized format into a database designed for the study. RESULTS: Prospectively collected data from 882 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in four Scottish centers. A number of statistically significant differences were identified between centers. These included investigation, treatment between centers (i.e., surgical rates), age, tumor histology, smoking history, socioeconomic profile, ventilatory function, and performance status. Predictors of declining performance status included increasing severity of a number of comorbidities, age, lower socioeconomic status, and specific centers. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified many significant intercenter differences within Scotland. We believe this to be the first study to identify nontumor factors independent of performance status that together limit the ability to deliver radical, possibly curative, therapy to our lung cancer population. It is only by identifying such factors that we can hope to improve on the relatively poor outlook for the majority of Scottish patients with lung cancer.