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.

An evaluation of CT radiation doses within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate radiation doses for all low-dose CT scans performed during the first year of a lung screening trial. METHODS: For all lung screening scans that were performed using a CT protocol that delivered image quality meeting the RSNA QIBA criteria, radiation dose metrics, participant height, weight, gender, and age were recorded. Values of volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) were evaluated as a function of weight in order to assess the performance of the scan protocol across the participant cohort. Calculated effective doses were used to establish the additional lifetime attributable cancer risks arising from trial scans. RESULTS: Median values of CTDIvol, DLP, and effective dose (IQR) from the 3521 scans were 1.1 mGy (0.70), 42.4 mGycm (24.9), and 1.15 mSv (0.67), whilst for 60-80kg participants the values were 1.0 mGy (0.30), 35.8 mGycm (11.4), and 0.97 mSv (0.31). A statistically significant correlation between CTDIvol and weight was identified for males (r = 0.9123, P < .001) and females (r = 0.9052, P < .001), however, the effect of gender on CTDIvol was not statistically significant (P = .2328) despite notable differences existing at the extremes of the weight range. The additional lifetime attributable cancer risks from a single scan were in the range 0.001%-0.006%. CONCLUSIONS: Low radiation doses can be achieved across a typical lung screening cohort using scan protocols that have been shown to deliver high levels of image quality. The observed dose levels may be considered as typical values for lung screening scans on similar types of scanners for an equivalent participant cohort. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Presentation of typical radiation dose levels for CT lung screening examinations in a large UK trial. Effective radiation doses can be of the order of 1 mSv for standard sized participants. Lifetime attributable cancer risks resulting from a single low-dose CT scan did not exceed 0.006%.

Pilot study of lung cancer screening for survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) treatment increases the risk of lung cancer. Most HL survivors are not eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) programmes developed for the general population, and the utility of these programmes has not been tested in HL survivors. We ran a LCS pilot in HL survivors to describe screening uptake, participant characteristics, impact of a decision aid and screen findings. HL survivors treated ≥5 years ago with mustine/procarbazine and/or thoracic radiation, were identified from a follow-up database and invited to participate. Participants underwent a low-dose CT (LDCT) reported using protocols validated for the general population. Two hundred and eighteen individuals were invited, 123 were eligible, 102 were screened (58% response rate): 58% female, median age 52 years, median 22 years since HL treatment. 91.4% were deemed to have made an informed decision; participation was not influenced by age, gender, years since treatment or deprivation. Only 3/35 ever-smokers met criteria for LCS through the programme aimed at the general population. Baseline LDCT results were: 90 (88.2%) negative, 10 (9.8%) indeterminate, 2 (2.0%) positive. Two 3-month surveillance scans were positive. Of 4 positive scans, 2 patients were diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer; 1 underwent curative surgery. Coronary artery calcification was detected in 36.3%, and clinically significant incidental findings in 2.9%. LDCT protocols validated in ever-smokers can detect asymptomatic early-stage lung cancers in HL survivors. This finding, together with screening uptake and low false positive rates, supports further research to implement LCS for HL survivors.

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.

Clinical trials in cancer screening, prevention and early diagnosis (SPED): a systematic mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Global annual cancer incidence is forecast to rise to 27.5 M by 2040, a 62% increase from 2018. For most cancers, prevention and early detection are the most effective ways of reducing mortality. This study maps trials in cancer screening, prevention, and early diagnosis (SPED) to identify areas of unmet need and highlight research priorities. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted to evaluate all clinical trials focused on cancer SPED, irrespective of tumour type. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) portfolio, EMBASE, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant papers published between 01/01/2007 and 01/04/2020. References were exported into Covidence software and double-screened. Data were extracted and mapped according to tumour site, geographical location, and intervention type. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen thousand seven hundred one abstracts were screened, 5157 full texts reviewed, and 2888 studies included. 1184 (52%) trials focussed on screening, 554 (24%) prevention, 442 (20%) early diagnosis, and 85 (4%) a combination. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer comprised 61% of all studies compared with 6.4% in lung and 1.8% in liver cancer. The latter two are responsible for 26.3% of global cancer deaths compared with 19.3% for the former three. Number of studies varied markedly according to geographical location; 88% were based in North America, Europe, or Asia. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows clear disparities in the volume of research conducted across different tumour types and according to geographical location. These findings will help drive future research effort so that resources can be directed towards major challenges in cancer SPED.

The radiology quality assurance process in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, and findings from the baseline round of low dose CT screening for lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: As lung cancer screening is rolled-out, there is a need to develop an effective quality assurance (QA) framework around radiology reporting to ensure optimal implementation. Here, we report a structured QA process for low-dose CT (LDCT) scans performed in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. METHODS: Negative LDCT scans were single read after using computer-aided detection software. The radiology QA process included reviewing 5% of negative scans selected at random, and all cases with a subsequent diagnosis of extrapulmonary cancer or interval lung cancer not detected on the baseline scan. Radiologists were not informed of the reason for review and original radiology reports were scored as either "satisfactory", "satisfactory with learning points", or "unsatisfactory". RESULTS: From 6650 participants undergoing LDCT screening, 208 negative scans were reviewed alongside 11 cases with subsequent extrapulmonary cancer and 10 cases with interval lung cancer. Overall, only three reports were ultimately judged "unsatisfactory", 1% of randomly selected negative scans (n = 2/208) and one interval lung cancer scan (n = 1/10). Four out of a total of five cases judged "satisfactory with learning points" were related to oesophageal abnormalities where the participant was subsequently diagnosed with oesophageal cancer. CONCLUSION: The described process attempts to minimise bias in retrospective review of screening scans, and may represent a framework for future QA of national screening programmes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study describes a structured QA process for a lung cancer screening programme, involving blinded second-read of LDCT screening scans to ensure fair, constructive audit of clinical performance.

Diagnoses and treatments for participants with interstitial lung abnormalities detected in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are relatively common incidental findings in participants undergoing low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Some ILA are transient and inconsequential, but others represent interstitial lung disease (ILD). Lung cancer screening therefore offers the opportunity of earlier diagnosis and treatment of ILD for some screening participants. METHODS: The prevalence of ILA in participants in the baseline screening round of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial is reported, along with the proportion referred to a regional ILD service, eventual diagnoses, outcomes and treatments. RESULTS: Of 6650 participants undergoing screening, ILA were reported in 169 (2.5%) participants. Following review in a screening review meeting, 56 participants were referred to the ILD service for further evaluation (0.8% of all screening participants). 2 participants declined referral, 1 is currently awaiting review and the remaining 53 were confirmed as having ILD. Eventual diagnoses were idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n=14), respiratory bronchiolitis ILD (n=4), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n=2), connective tissue disease/rheumatoid arthritis-related ILD (n=4), asbestosis (n=1), idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia (n=1), sarcoidosis (n=1) and pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (n=1). Twenty five patients had unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. Overall, 10 people received pharmacotherapy (7 antifibrotics and 3 prednisolone) representing 18% of those referred to the ILD service and 0.15% of those undergoing screening. 32 people remain under surveillance in the ILD service, some of whom may require treatment in future. DISCUSSION: Lung cancer screening detects clinically significant cases of ILD allowing early commencement of disease-modifying treatment in a proportion of participants. This is the largest screening cohort to report eventual diagnoses and treatments and provides an estimate of the level of clinical activity to be expected by ILD services as lung cancer screening is implemented. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal management of screen-detected ILD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42704678.

Invitation strategies and participation in a community-based lung cancer screening programme located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation.

INTRODUCTION: Although lung cancer screening is being implemented in the UK, there is uncertainty about the optimal invitation strategy. Here, we report participation in a community screening programme following a population-based invitation approach, examine factors associated with participation, and compare outcomes with hypothetical targeted invitations. METHODS: Letters were sent to all individuals (age 55-80) registered with a general practice (n=35 practices) in North and East Manchester, inviting ever-smokers to attend a Lung Health Check (LHC). Attendees at higher risk (PLCOm2012NoRace score≥1.5%) were offered two rounds of annual low-dose CT screening. Primary care recorded smoking codes (live and historical) were used to model hypothetical targeted invitation approaches for comparison. RESULTS: Letters were sent to 35 899 individuals, 71% from the most socioeconomically deprived quintile. Estimated response rate in ever-smokers was 49%; a lower response rate was associated with younger age, male sex, and primary care recorded current smoking status (adjOR 0.55 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.58), p<0.001). 83% of eligible respondents attended an LHC (n=8887/10 708). 51% were eligible for screening (n=4540/8887) of whom 98% had a baseline scan (n=4468/4540). Screening adherence was 83% (n=3488/4199) and lung cancer detection 3.2% (n=144) over 2 rounds. Modelled targeted approaches required 32%-48% fewer invitations, identified 94.6%-99.3% individuals eligible for screening, and included 97.1%-98.6% of screen-detected lung cancers. DISCUSSION: Using a population-based invitation strategy, in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation, is effective and may increase screening accessibility. Due to limitations in primary care records, targeted approaches should incorporate historical smoking codes and individuals with absent smoking records.

Measuring spirometry in a lung cancer screening cohort highlights possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD.

Introduction: COPD is underdiagnosed, and measurement of spirometry alongside low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is one strategy to increase earlier diagnosis of this disease. Methods: Ever-smokers at high risk of lung cancer were invited to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial for a lung health check (LHC) comprising LDCT screening, pre-bronchodilator spirometry and a smoking cessation service. In this cross-sectional study we present data on participant demographics, respiratory symptoms, lung function, emphysema on imaging and both self-reported and primary care diagnoses of COPD. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD in this population, with airflow obstruction defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70. Results: Out of 3920 LHC attendees undergoing spirometry, 17% had undiagnosed airflow obstruction with respiratory symptoms, representing potentially undiagnosed COPD. Compared to those with a primary care COPD code, this population had milder symptoms, better lung function and were more likely to be current smokers (p≤0.001 for all comparisons). Out of 836 attendees with a primary care COPD code who underwent spirometry, 19% did not have airflow obstruction, potentially representing misdiagnosed COPD, although symptom burden was high. Discussion: Spirometry offered alongside LDCT screening can potentially identify cases of undiagnosed and misdiagnosed COPD. Future research should assess the downstream impact of these findings to determine whether any meaningful changes to treatment and outcomes occur, and to assess the impact on co-delivering spirometry on other parameters of LDCT screening performance such as participation and adherence. Additionally, work is needed to better understand the aetiology of respiratory symptoms in those with misdiagnosed COPD, to ensure that this highly symptomatic group receive evidence-based interventions.

Impact of skip mediastinal lymph node metastasis on outcomes after resection for primary lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer and nodal disease are a heterogeneous group with varied patterns of disease. The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of patients with skip N2 disease in comparison to those with N1 or non-skip N2 disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 445 patients undergoing anatomical lung resection for primary lung cancer between 2012 and 2019 with post-operative histological confirmation of nodal disease was undertaken. Log rank analysis was used to assess differences in estimated median overall survival according to nodal status. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine whether skip N2 disease was independently associated with overall survival. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 67.0 years (standard deviation ± 9.2 years) and 48.1% (n = 214) were male. In total, 20.7% (n = 92) of patients had N1 disease, 32.1% (n = 143) had skip N2 disease and 47.2% (n = 210) had non-skip N2 disease. Post-operative upstaging took place in 33.0% (n = 147) of patients. Median follow-up time was 35 months (interquartile range 14-68 months). Skip N2 patients had significantly longer estimated median overall survival in comparison to their non-skip N2 counterparts (47 months vs 28 months, log rank analysis p = 0.029) and non-skip N2 disease remained independently associated with reduced overall survival after multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 1.421, 95% confidence interval 1.060-1.907, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Skip N2 disease is a positive prognostic factor for patients with N2 lung cancer, suggesting that lung cancer staging guidelines should consider separating N2 disease into additional subgroups in order to improve prognostic accuracy.

Variations in Genomic Testing in Non-small Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Healthcare Professional Survey of Current Practices in the UK.

This survey aims to understand the current UK practice for non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and identify barriers that may impact patient treatment and outcomes. In March-June 2021, 57 interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals involved in the secondary care management of patients with NSCLC. Most respondents performed genetic testing at onsite and non-genomic laboratory hub (GLH) offsite locations. The most common genetic tests were EGFR T790M variant (100%), EGFR exon 18-21 covered (95%) and BRAF (93%). No targeted therapy (TT) available (69%), lack of access to a TT (54%) or excessive molecular testing turnaround times (39%) were the most common reasons for using an immuno-oncology therapy over a TT in the first-line setting. The survey highlights variation in mutation testing practices across the UK, which may impact treatment decisions and contribute to health outcome inequality.

Validation of lung cancer polygenic risk scores in a high-risk case-control cohort.

PURPOSE: Screening with low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer (LC) mortality. Risk prediction models used for screening selection do not include genetic variables. Here, we investigated the performance of previously published polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for LC, considering their potential to improve screening selection. METHODS: We validated 9 PRSs in a high-risk case-control cohort, comprising genotype data from 652 surgical patients with LC and 550 cancer-free, high-risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥ 1.51%) participants of the Manchester Lung Health Check, a community-based LC screening program (n = 550). Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]) between cases and controls was assessed for each PRS independently and alongside clinical risk factors. RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 53% were female, 46% were current smokers, and 76% were National Lung Screening Trial eligible. Median PLCOM2012 score among controls was 3.4%, 80% of cases were early stage. All PRSs significantly improved discrimination, AUC increased between +0.002 (P = .02) and +0.015 (P < .0001), compared with clinical risk factors alone. The best-performing PRS had an independent AUC of 0.59. Two novel loci, in the DAPK1 and MAGI2 genes, were significantly associated with LC risk. CONCLUSION: PRSs may improve LC risk prediction and screening selection. Further research, particularly examining clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, is required.

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.

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.

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.

The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST): protocol for a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a trial of community-based CT screening for lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney cancer (renal cell cancer (RCC)) is the seventh most common cancer in the UK. As RCC is largely curable if detected at an early stage and most patients have no symptoms, there is international interest in evaluating a screening programme for RCC. The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) will assess the feasibility of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for RCC and other abdominal pathology within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), a randomised trial of community-based CT screening for lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In YLST, ever-smokers aged 55-80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds have been randomised to a Lung Health Check assessment, including a thoracic low-dose CT (LDCT) for those at high risk of lung cancer, or routine care. YLST participants randomised to the Lung Health Check arm who attend for the second round of screening at 2 years without a history of RCC or abdominal CT scan within the previous 6 months will be invited to take part in YKST. We anticipate inviting 4700 participants. Those who consent will have an abdominal CT immediately following their YLST thoracic LDCT. A subset of participants and the healthcare workers involved will be invited to take part in a qualitative interview. Primary objectives are to quantify the uptake of the abdominal CT, assess the acceptability of the combined screening approach and pilot the majority of procedures for a subsequent randomised controlled trial of RCC screening within lung cancer screening. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: YKST was approved by the North West-Preston Research Ethics Committee (21/NW/0021), and the Health Research Authority on 3 February 2021. Trial results will be disseminated at clinical meetings, in peer-reviewed journals and to policy-makers. Findings will be made available to participants via the study website (www.YKST.org). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT05005195 and ISRCTN18055040.

Explaining differences in the frequency of lung cancer detection between the National Lung Screening Trial and community-based screening in Manchester, UK.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of lung cancer detection in the Manchester Lung Health Checks (MLHCs), a community-based screening service, was higher than in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) over two screening rounds. We aimed to identify the potential reasons for this difference. METHODS: We analyzed individual-level data from NLST and MLHCs, restricting to MLHCs participants who met NLST eligibility criteria. We calculated 'detection ratios' comparing the frequency of lung cancer detection in MLHCs vs NLST, first after excluding NLST participants ineligible by MLHC eligibility criteria (6-year lung cancer risk ≥ 1.51 %), and then after standardization to remove the influence of different distributions of baseline lung cancer risk. RESULTS: Among the 1,079 MLHCs participants who met NLST eligibility criteria, 4.7% were diagnosed with lung cancer over two screening rounds compared with 1.7% in NLST, giving an initial detection ratio of 2.6 (95%CI 2.2-3.0). This was reduced to 2.2 (95%CI 1.3-2.3) after imposing the MLHCs eligibility criterion on NLST, and further to 1.6 (95%CI 1.2-2.1) after removing the influence of different risk distributions. In stratified analyses, the standardized detection ratio was particularly elevated in individuals who were older, living in areas of high socioeconomic disadvantage, or had an FEV/FVC ratio less than 60. CONCLUSIONS: The 2.6-fold higher lung cancer detection in the community-based MLHCs vs NLST is partly explained by differences in eligibility criteria and baseline risk distributions. The residual 60% increase may relate to higher detection in certain risk groups, including older participants, those with more obstructive lung disease, and those living in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage.

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.