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.

Early-stage lung cancer associated with higher frequency of chest x-ray up to three years prior to diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Symptom awareness campaigns have contributed to improved early detection of lung cancer. Previous research suggests that this may have been achieved partly by diagnosing lung cancer in those who were not experiencing symptoms of their cancer. This study aimed to explore the relationship between frequency of chest x-ray in the three years prior to diagnosis and stage at diagnosis. SETTINGS: Lung cancer service in a UK teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2013 were identified. The number of chest x-rays for each patient in the three years prior to diagnosis was recorded. Statistical analysis of chest x-ray frequency comparing patients with early- and late-stage disease was performed. RESULTS: One-thousand seven-hundred fifty patients were included - 589 (33.7%) with stage I/II and 1,161 (66.3%) with stage III/IV disease. All patients had at least one chest x-ray in the six months prior to diagnosis. Those with early-stage disease had more chest x-rays in this period (1.32 vs 1.15 radiographs per patient, P = 0.009). In the period 36 months to six months prior to lung cancer diagnosis, this disparity was even greater (1.70 vs 0.92, radiographs per patient, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of chest x-ray are likely to contribute to earlier detection. Given the known symptom lead time many patients diagnosed through chest x-ray may not have been experiencing symptoms caused by their cancer. The number of chest x-rays performed could reflect patient and/or clinician behaviours in response to symptoms.

A prospective cohort evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of the chest X-ray for the detection of lung cancer in symptomatic adults.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of the chest x-ray (CXR) in the identification of lung cancer amongst symptomatic individuals is uncertain. PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the CXR for the detection of non-small cell carcinomas (NSCLC) and all primary intrathoracic malignancies. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of consecutive CXR reports obtained within a primary care open access initiative. Eligibility criteria were symptoms specified by National Institute for Clinical Excellence as indicative of possible lung cancer and age over 50-yrs. A positive test was a CXR which led directly or indirectly to investigation with CT. The reference standards were malignancies observed within a one- or two-year post-test period. RESULTS: 8,948 CXR outcomes were evaluated. 496 positive studies led to a diagnosis of 101 patients with primary intrathoracic malignancy including 80 with NSCLC. Within two-years, a cumulative total of 168 patients with primary intrathoracic malignancies including 133 NSCLC were observed. The sensitivity and specificity for NSCLC were 76% (95 %CI 68-84) and 95% (95 %CI 95-96) within 1-year and 60% (95 %CI 52-69) and 95% (95 %CI 95-96) within 2-years. The 2-yr positive and negative likelihood ratios were 12.8 and 0.4. The results did not differ for NSCLC compared to all primary malignancies. Within this symptomatic population a negative test reduced the 2-year risk of lung cancer to 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: A positive test strongly increases the probability of malignancy whereas a negative test does not conclusively exclude the disease. The findings allow the risk of malignancy following a negative test to be estimated.

Correction to: Recognising Lung Cancer in Primary Care.

The original article has published with incorrect license statement.

Surgery or radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer? An intention-to-treat analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer, with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) a lower morbidity alternative for patients with limited physiological reserve. Comparisons of outcomes between these treatment options are limited by competing comorbidities and differences in pre-treatment pathological information. This study aims to address these issues by assessing both overall and cancer-specific survival for presumed stage I lung cancer on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis identified all patients treated for presumed stage I lung cancer within a single large UK centre. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and combined cancer and treatment-related survival were assessed with adjustment for confounding variables using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks analyses. RESULTS: 468 patients (including 316 surgery and 99 SABR) were included in the study population. Compared with surgery, SABR was associated with inferior overall survival on multivariable Cox modelling (SABR HR 1.84 (95% CI 1.32-2.57)), but there was no difference in cancer-specific survival (SABR HR 1.47 (95% CI 0.80-2.69)) or combined cancer and treatment-related survival (SABR HR 1.27 (95% CI 0.74-2.17)). Combined cancer and treatment-related death was no different between SABR and surgery on Fine-Gray competing risks multivariable modelling (subdistribution hazard 1.03 (95% CI 0.59-1.81)). Non-cancer-related death was significantly higher in SABR than surgery (subdistribution hazard 2.16 (95% CI 1.41-3.32)). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, no difference in cancer-specific survival was observed between SABR and surgery. Further work is needed to define predictors of outcome and help inform treatment decisions.

Recognising Lung Cancer in Primary Care.

Significant advances in the management of both early and advanced stage lung cancer have not yet led to the scale of improved outcomes which have been achieved in other cancers over the last 40 years. Diagnosis of lung cancer at the earliest stage of disease is strongly associated with improved survival. Therefore, although recent advances in oncology may herald breakthroughs in effective treatment, achieving early diagnosis will remain crucial to obtaining optimal outcomes. This is challenging, as most lung cancer symptoms are non-specific or are common respiratory symptoms which usually represent benign disease. Identification of patients at risk of lung cancer who require further investigation is an important responsibility for general practitioners (GPs). Diagnosis has historically relied upon plain chest X-ray (CXR), organised in response to symptoms. The sensitivity of this modality, however, compares unfavourably with that of computed tomography (CT). In some jurisdictions screening high-risk individuals with low dose CT (LDCT) is now recommended. However uptake remains low and the eligibility for screening programmes is restricted. Therefore, even if screening is widely adopted, most patients will continue to be diagnosed after presenting with symptoms. Achieving early diagnosis requires GPs to maintain an appropriate level of suspicion and readiness to investigate in high-risk patients or those with non-resolving symptoms. This article discusses the early detection of lung cancer from a primary care perspective. We outline risk factors and epidemiology, the role of screening and offer guidance on the recognition of symptomatic presentation and the investigation and referral of suspected lung cancer.

Lung cancer stage-shift following a symptom awareness campaign.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer outcomes in the UK are worse than in many other developed nations. Symptom awareness campaigns aim to diagnose patients at an earlier stage to improve cancer outcomes. METHODS: An early diagnosis campaign for lung cancer commenced in Leeds, UK in 2011 comprising public and primary-care facing components. Rates of community referral for chest X-ray and lung cancer stage (TNM seventh edition) at presentation were collected from 2008 to 2015. Linear trends were assessed by χ2 test for trend in proportions. Headline figures are presented for the 3 years pre-campaign (2008-2010) and the three most recent years for which data are available during the campaign (2013-2015). FINDINGS: Community-ordered chest X-ray rates per year increased from 18 909 in 2008-2010 to 34 194 in 2013-2015 (80.8% increase). A significant stage shift towards earlier stage lung cancer was seen (χ2(1)=32.2, p<0.0001). There was an 8.8 percentage point increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with stage I/II lung cancer (26.5% pre-campaign vs 35.3% during campaign) and a 9.3% reduction in the absolute number of patients diagnosed with stage III/IV disease (1254 pre-campaign vs 1137 during campaign). INTERPRETATION: This is the largest described lung cancer stage-shift in association with a symptom awareness campaign. A causal link between the campaign and stage-shift cannot be proven but appears plausible. Limitations of the analysis include a lack of contemporary control population.

Secondary-care costs associated with lung cancer diagnosed at emergency hospitalisation in the United Kingdom.

Lung cancer diagnosis during emergency hospital admission has been associated with higher early secondary-care costs and lower longer-term costs than outpatient diagnoses. This retrospective cohort study analyses the secondary-care costs of 3274 consecutive patients with lung cancer. Patients diagnosed during emergency admissions incurred greater costs during the first month and had a worse prognosis compared with outpatient diagnoses. In patients who remained alive, costs after the first month were comparable between diagnostic routes. In addition to improving patient experience and outcome, strategies to increase earlier diagnosis may reduce the additional healthcare costs associated with this route to diagnosis.

Factors affecting hospital costs in lung cancer patients in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Rising healthcare costs and financial constraints are increasing pressure on healthcare budgets. There is little published data on the healthcare costs of lung cancer in the UK, with international studies mostly small and limited by data collection methods. Accurate assessment of healthcare costs is essential for effective service planning. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, descriptive cohort study linking clinical data from a local electronic database of lung cancer patients at a large UK teaching hospital with recorded hospital income. Costs were adjusted to 2013-2014 prices. RESULTS: The study analysed secondary care costs of 3274 patients. Mean cumulative costs were £5852 (95% CI, £5694 to £6027) at 90 days and £10,009 (95% CI, £9717 to £10,278) at one year. The majority of costs (58.5%) were accumulated within the first 90 days, with acute inpatient costs the largest contributor at one year (42.1%). The strongest predictor of costs was active treatment, especially surgery. Costs were also affected by age, route to diagnosis, clinical stage and cell type. DISCUSSION: Successful early diagnosis initiatives that increase radical treatment rates and improve outcomes may significantly increase the secondary care costs of lung cancer management. The use of routine NHS clinical and financial data can enable efficient and effective analyses of large cohort health economic data.