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.

Spirometry performed as part of the Manchester community-based lung cancer screening programme detects a high prevalence of airflow obstruction in individuals without a prior diagnosis of COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. We investigated the role of spirometry in a community-based lung cancer screening programme. METHODS: Ever smokers, age 55-74, resident in three deprived areas of Manchester were invited to a 'Lung Health Check' (LHC) based in convenient community locations. Spirometry was incorporated into the LHCs alongside lung cancer risk estimation (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Study Risk Prediction Model, 2012 version (PLCOM2012)), symptom assessment and smoking cessation advice. Those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOM2012 ≥1.51%) were eligible for annual low-dose CT screening over two screening rounds. Airflow obstruction was defined as FEV1/FVC<0.7. Primary care databases were searched for any prior diagnosis of COPD. RESULTS: 99.4% (n=2525) of LHC attendees successfully performed spirometry; mean age was 64.1±5.5, 51% were women, 35% were current smokers. 37.4% (n=944) had airflow obstruction of which 49.7% (n=469) had no previous diagnosis of COPD. 53.3% of those without a prior diagnosis were symptomatic (n=250/469). After multivariate analysis, the detection of airflow obstruction without a prior COPD diagnosis was associated with male sex (adjOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.47; p<0.0001), younger age (p=0.015), lower smoking duration (p<0.0001), fewer cigarettes per day (p=0.035), higher FEV1/FVC ratio (<0.0001) and being asymptomatic (adjOR 4.19, 95% CI 2.95 to 5.95; p<0.0001). The likelihood of screen detected lung cancer was significantly greater in those with evidence of airflow obstruction who had a previous diagnosis of COPD (adjOR 2.80, 95% CI 1.60 to 8.42; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating spirometry into a community-based targeted lung cancer screening programme is feasible and identifies a significant number of individuals with airflow obstruction who do not have a prior diagnosis of COPD.

Analysis of lung cancer risk model (PLCOM2012 and LLPv2) performance in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the performance of two risk prediction models (PLCOM2012 and Liverpool Lung Project model (LLPv2)) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria in a community-based screening programme. METHODS: Ever-smokers aged 55-74, from deprived areas of Manchester, were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC). Individuals at higher risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥1.51%) were offered annual LDCT screening over two rounds. LLPv2 score was calculated but not used for screening selection; ≥2.5% and ≥5% thresholds were used for analysis. RESULTS: PLCOM2012 ≥1.51% selected 56% (n=1429) of LHC attendees for screening. LLPv2 ≥2.5% also selected 56% (n=1430) whereas NLST (47%, n=1188) and LLPv2 ≥5% (33%, n=826) selected fewer. Over two screening rounds 62 individuals were diagnosed with LC; representing 87% (n=62/71) of 6-year incidence predicted by mean PLCOM2012 score (5.0%). 26% (n=16/62) of individuals with LC were not eligible for screening using LLPv2 ≥5%, 18% (n=11/62) with NLST criteria and 7% (n=5/62) with LLPv2 ≥2.5%. NLST eligible Manchester attendees had 2.5 times the LC detection rate than NLST participants after two annual screens (≈4.3% (n=51/1188) vs 1.7% (n=438/26 309); p<0.0001). Adverse measures of health, including airflow obstruction, respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular disease, were positively correlated with LC risk. Coronary artery calcification was predictive of LC (adjOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.64; p=0.028). CONCLUSION: Prospective comparisons of risk prediction tools are required to optimise screening selection in different settings. The PLCOM2012 model may underestimate risk in deprived UK populations; further research focused on model calibration is required.

Attendees of Manchester's Lung Health Check pilot express a preference for community-based lung cancer screening.

Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot utilised mobile CT scanners in convenient retail locations to deliver lung cancer screening to socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. We assessed whether screening location was an important factor for those attending the service. Location was important for 74.7% (n=701/938) and 23% (n=216/938) reported being less likely to attend an equivalent hospital-based programme. This preference was most common in current smokers (27% current smokers vs 19% former smokers; AdjOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08, p=0.036) and those in the lowest deprivation quartile (25% lowest quartile vs 17.6% highest quartile; AdjOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.24, p=0.005). Practical issues related to travel were most important in those less willing to attend a hospital-based service, with 83.3% citing at least one travel related barrier to non-attendance. A convenient community-based screening programme may reduce inequalities in screening adherence especially in those at high risk of lung cancer in deprived areas.

Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based 'Lung Health Check' pilot in deprived areas of Manchester.

We report baseline results of a community-based, targeted, low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Ever smokers, aged 55-74 years, were invited to 'lung health checks' (LHCs) next to local shopping centres, with immediate access to LDCT for those at high risk (6-year risk ≥1.51%, PLCOM2012 calculator). 75% of attendees (n=1893/2541) were ranked in the lowest deprivation quintile; 56% were high risk and of 1384 individuals screened, 3% (95% CI 2.3% to 4.1%) had lung cancer (80% early stage) of whom 65% had surgical resection. Taking lung cancer screening into communities, with an LHC approach, is effective and engages populations in deprived areas.

Second round results from the Manchester 'Lung Health Check' community-based targeted lung cancer screening pilot.

We report results from the second annual screening round (T1) of Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot of community-based lung cancer screening in deprived areas (undertaken June to August 2017). Screening adherence was 90% (n=1194/1323): 92% of CT scans were classified negative, 6% indeterminate and 2.5% positive; there were no interval cancers. Lung cancer incidence was 1.6% (n=19), 79% stage I, treatments included surgery (42%, n=9), stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (26%, n=5) and radical radiotherapy (5%, n=1). False-positive rate was 34.5% (n=10/29), representing 0.8% of T1 participants (n=10/1194). Targeted community-based lung cancer screening promotes high screening adherence and detects high rates of early stage lung cancer.

Chronic Pulmonary Aspergillosis after Surgical Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer-An Analysis of Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes.

Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) is a rare but significant complication of lung cancer surgery. Its effect on survival remains unclear. Our aim was to describe the outcomes of the patients who developed CPA following the surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), identify the risk factors associated with its development following lung resection, and evaluate its impact on survival. All the patients with a diagnosis of CPA and operated NSCLC were identified in the National Aspergillosis Centre (NAC) database (2009-2020). Additional patients were identified in the Northwest Clinical Outcomes Research Registry (2012-2019) database. A regression analysis was performed to examine potential links between CPA and long-term outcomes and also to identify the factors associated with the development of CPA. The primary outcomes were the development of CPA, 1-year and 5-year mortality, and overall survival. Thirty-two patients diagnosed with CPA after lung resection were identified in the NAC database, of which 11 were also contained within the NCORR database, with a prevalence of 0.2% (n = 11/4425). Post-operative CPA was associated with significantly lower survival on log-rank analysis (p = 0.020). Mortality at one year was 25.0% (n = 8) and 59.4% (n = 19) at five years after the CPA diagnosis. On univariable analysis, a lower mean percentage-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s, ischaemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were all significantly associated with CPA development. CPA is a rare complication following lung cancer surgery which has a significant impact on long-term survival. Its development may be associated with pre-existing cardiopulmonary comorbidities. Further research in larger cohorts is required to substantiate these findings.

When to reinvite initially ineligible populations for targeted lung cancer screening?

INTRODUCTION: Targeted low-dose CT lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. England's Targeted Lung Health Check programme uses risk prediction tools to determine eligibility for biennial screening among people with a smoking history aged 55-74. Some participants initially ineligible for lung cancer screening will later become eligible with increasing age and ongoing tobacco exposure. It is, therefore, important to understand how many people could qualify for reinvitation, and after how long, to inform implementation of services. METHODS: We prospectively predicted future risk (using Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian trial's risk model (PLCOm2012) and Liverpool Lung Project version 2 (LLPv2) risk models) and time-to-eligibility of 5345 participants to estimate how many would become eligible through the course of a Lung Health Check screening programme for 55-74 years. RESULTS: Approximately a quarter eventually become eligible, with those with the lowest baseline risks unlikely to ever become eligible. Time-to-eligibility is shorter for participants with higher baseline risk, increasing age and ongoing smoking status. At a PLCOm2012 threshold ≥1.51%, 68% of those who continue to smoke become eligible compared with 18% of those who have quit. DISCUSSION: Predicting which participants may become eligible, and when, during a screening programme can help inform reinvitation strategies and service planning. Those with risk scores closer to the eligibility threshold, particularly people who continue to smoke, will reach eligibility in subsequent rounds while those at the lowest risk may be discharged from the programme from the outset.

Endobronchial lymphoma - A rare cause of airway obstruction.

Endobronchial involvement is a very rare manifestation of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, which if left untreated, may cause airway obstruction and lead to respiratory failure. Only a few cases have been reported in the literature. This aim of this case report is to highlight the importance of having a high index of suspicion of endobronchial lymphoma in patients presenting with endobronchial lesions either in isolation or in conjunction with widespread lymphadenopathy.

The detection, assessment and clinical evolution of interstitial lung abnormalities identified through lung cancer screening.

Introduction: Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs) are common incidental findings in lung cancer screening; however, their clinical evolution and longer-term outcomes are less clear. The aim of this cohort study was to report 5-year outcomes of individuals with ILAs identified through a lung cancer screening programme. In addition, we compared patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with screen-detected ILAs to newly diagnosed interstitial lung disease (ILD) to assess symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: Individuals with screen-detected ILAs were identified, and 5-year outcomes, including ILD diagnoses, progression-free survival and mortality, were recorded. Risk factors associated with ILD diagnosis were assessed using logistic regression and survival using Cox proportional hazard analysis. PROMs were compared between a subset of patients with ILAs and a group of ILD patients. Results: 1384 individuals underwent baseline low-dose computed tomography screening, with 54 (3.9%) identified as having ILAs. 22 (40.7%) were subsequently diagnosed with ILD. 14 (25.9%) individuals died, and 28 (53.8%) suffered disease progression within 5 years. Fibrotic ILA was an independent risk factor for ILD diagnosis, mortality and reduced progression-free survival. Patients with ILAs had lower symptom burden and better HRQoL in comparison to the ILD group. Breathlessness visual analogue scale (VAS) score was associated with mortality on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Fibrotic ILA was a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes including subsequent ILD diagnosis. While screen-detected ILA patients were less symptomatic, breathlessness VAS score was associated with adverse outcomes. These results could inform risk stratification in ILA.

The diagnostic pathway in lung cancer patients with best supportive care decisions: are there lessons to be learnt?

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of patients with lung cancer will not be suitable for anti-cancer treatment and are managed with best supportive care (BSC). The aim of this retrospective case series analysis was to critically review the use of diagnostic and staging investigations in patients who were ultimately managed with BSC. METHODS: A retrospective review of all lung cancer patients with a multidisciplinary team outcome of BSC from 01 June 2018 to 01 June 2019 was performed. Patients were categorised into those with an early BSC decision and those that underwent further investigations prior to a BSC decision (investigations beyond initial computed tomography (CT)). Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes were collated and analysed. RESULTS: Seventy-seven lung cancer patients managed with BSC were identified. Patients were elderly (average age 79 years), functionally limited (80% World Health Organization performance status ≥3), frail (70% clinical frailty score ≥6) and had advanced stage disease (90% stage III/IV). Thirty-one (40%) underwent further investigations beyond the initial CT prior to the BSC decision. The most common types of further investigations were endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (27/31; 74%), positron emission tomography - CT (18/31; 45%) and CT-guided lung biopsy (7/31; 23%). This is despite high levels of consultant chest physician review at first assessment (71%), cancer nurse specialist involvement (97%), specialist palliative care involvement (65%), a high pathological confirmation rate of sampling procedures (89%) and adequacy of molecular testing. The most common reason for a BSC recommendation was a lack of fitness for systemic therapy (17/31; 55%). Six out of thirty-one (19%) patients deteriorated rapidly and died on the cancer pathway and 5/31 (16%) patients had inadequate renal function for systemic anti-cancer treatment. There was low utilisation of serum epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing across the study cohort (2/77; 3%). DISCUSSION: In an older, functionally limited and frail patient with lung cancer, there is a risk of over-investigation. Impaired renal function is an important clinical factor to identify early to support discussions in this cohort. There will always be an unavoidable proportion of patients that undergo further investigations (often in search of rare targetable mutations) and are then ultimately recommended for best supportive care; such cases could form the basis of specific review and learning for lung cancer services.

Risk perception and disease knowledge in attendees of a community-based lung cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVES: In England, a risk-based approach is used to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening. Ensuring effective communication and counselling of risk is therefore increasingly important. In this study, we explore the perception of lung cancer risk in attendees of a community-based screening service, located in socio-economically deprived areas of Manchester. We analyse responses based on demographic variables, calculated risk score and screening eligibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Manchester Lung Health Check (LHC) programme invited ever smokers, age 55-80, to a lung cancer risk assessment in which their 6-year risk was calculated (using the PLCOM2012 model). Those at high risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥ 1.51%) were eligible for low dose CT (LDCT) screening. Prior to their assessment, attendees were invited to complete the study questionnaire, which assessed absolute and comparative risk perception, disease knowledge (incidence, survival, and risk factors), lung cancer specific worry, and mental health. RESULTS: 371 participants completed the questionnaire; 66% (n = 243) had linked clinical data. Perceived absolute risk was markedly higher than calculated risk (median: 20% vs. 1%; p < 0.001) and higher in women than men (25% vs. 15%; p = 0.001). There was no correlation between perceived absolute and calculated risk. Overall, 30% classified themselves at higher, and 21% at lower, lung cancer risk compared to others their age. Median PLCOM2012 score increased with perceived comparative risk (p = 0.004). Those eligible for screening were more likely to: classify themselves at higher comparative risk (41% vs. 21%; p < 0.0001), report lung cancer-specific worry (27% vs. 10%; p = 0.001) and have indications of depression (20% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Family history of lung cancer was significantly associated with higher comparative risk (adjOR 4.03, 95%CI 1.74-9.3; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Employing comparative rather than absolute risk may assist risk counselling. Further research is required to determine the optimal approach to risk communication in this setting.

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.

Lung cancer for the non-respiratory physician.

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death globally. Delayed diagnosis is a major contributing factor to poor outcomes and remains a key challenge to overcome. While debate around the implementation of lung cancer screening for asymptomatic high-risk individuals continues, rapid access to relevant diagnostic tests is essential. The new National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway describes 'diagnostic standards of care' in an effort to implement best practice, reduce variation and improve delays in diagnosis, staging and treatment of lung cancer. Lung cancer treatment continues to develop with new surgical techniques, radiotherapy options and more drugs being licensed as part of standard treatment. We provide an overview of the core lung cancer diagnostic steps, recognition and management of acute presentations as well as the latest treatment options.

Analysis of the baseline performance of five UK lung cancer screening programmes.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer specific mortality. Several countries, including the UK, are evaluating the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening using the latest evidence. In this paper we report baseline screening performance from five UK-based lung cancer screening programmes. METHODS: Data was collected at baseline from each screening programme. Measures of performance included prevalence of screen detected lung cancer, rate of surveillance imaging for indeterminate findings and surgical resection rates. Screening related harms were assessed by measuring false positive rates, number of invasive tests with associated complications in individuals without lung cancer and benign surgical resection rates. RESULTS: A total of 11,148 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan during the period of analysis (2011 to 2020). Overall, 84.7% (n = 9,440) of baseline LDCT scans were categorised as negative, 11.1% (n = 1,239) as indeterminate and 4.2% (n = 469) as positive. The prevalence of screen detected lung cancer was 2.2%, ranging between 1.8% and 4.4% for individual programmes. The surgical resection rate was 66% (range 46% to 83%) and post-surgical 90-day mortality for those with lung cancer 1.2% (n = 2/165). The false positive rate was 2% (n = 219/10,898) and of those with a positive result, one in two had lung cancer diagnosed (53.3%). An invasive test was required in 0.6% (n = 61/10,898) of screening attendees without lung cancer; there were no associated major complications or deaths. The benign surgical resection rate was 4.6% (n = 8/173), equating to 0.07% of the screened population. DISCUSSION: The performance of UK-based lung cancer screening programmes, delivered within or aligned to the National Health Service, compares favourably to published clinical trial data. Reported harms, including false positive and benign surgical resection rates are low. Ongoing monitoring of screening performance is vital to ensure standards are maintained and harms minimised.

Performance monitoring of EBUS for the staging and diagnosis of lung cancer: auditing the Greater Manchester EBUS service against new national standards.

INTRODUCTION: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a pivotal test in lung cancer staging and diagnosis, mandating robust audit and performance monitoring of EBUS services. We present the first regional cancer alliance EBUS performance audit against the new National EBUS specification. METHODS: Across the five EBUS centres in the Greater Manchester Cancer Alliance, data are recorded at the point of procedure, when pathological results are available and at 6 months postprocedure to review any further pathological sampling (eg, at surgical resection) and the outcome of clinical-radiological follow-up. Outcomes across all five centres were compared with national standards for all lung cancer EBUS procedures from 01 January 2017 to 31 December 2018. RESULTS: 1899 lung cancer staging or diagnostic EBUS procedures were performed across the five centres during the study period; 1309 staging EBUS procedures and 590 diagnostic EBUS procedures. Major complications were seen in six cases (<1%). All five trusts demonstrated performance above that set national standards in key metrics for both staging and diagnostic EBUS, however the provision of adequate tissue for predictive marker testing was below national standards at one trust. Across Greater Manchester, 72% and 64% of patients had their EBUS procedure performed within 7 days of referral in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Only one out of five trusts met the national targets of >85% of procedures performed within 7 days of referral. CONCLUSION: The National EBUS service specification is an important framework to drive the quality of EBUS services across the UK. Our data provide assurance of appropriate performance and safety while also highlighting specific areas for attention that can be addressed with the support of the cancer alliance.

Implementation and outcomes of the RAPID programme: Addressing the front end of the lung cancer pathway in Manchester.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with suspected lung cancer require computed tomography (CT), specialist interpretation of the CT and a consultation with a specialist. Significant time savings could be made with rapid access to these components in the front end of the lung cancer pathway. METHODS: The RAPID programme was launched at Manchester's Wythenshawe Hospital in April 2016. This pathway offers next working day CT for patients with suspected lung cancer, immediate 'hot' reporting of CT images and a same day consultation with a diagnostic specialist. RESULTS: From April 2016 to January 2019, 1,027 patients were referred to the RAPID programme. The median time from referral to CT was 3 days. The CT was hot reported in 94% of patients. The median time from CT to triage and consultation with a diagnostic specialist was 0 days. Overall 56% and 90% of patients had completed a CT and consultation within 3 and 7 days of referral, respectively (0% and 24% prior to implementation). CONCLUSION: Through simple reorganisation of workload, we have significantly reduced the pathway for patients with suspected lung cancer to meet a specialist with a reported CT, something we firmly believe is replicable across all hospitals.

Attending community-based lung cancer screening influences smoking behaviour in deprived populations.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ever-smokers, age 55-74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCOm2012), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCOM2012≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed. RESULTS: 919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms (adjOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07-6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a 'licence to smoke' in those screened.

CT screening for lung cancer: Are we ready to implement in Europe?

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is already available in certain parts of the world, such as the United States, but not yet in Europe. The recently published European position statement on lung cancer screening has recommended planning for implementation of screening to start within 18-months [1]. Pilot European programmes are already underway, primarily in the United Kingdom (UK), delivering lung cancer screening to their local populations. This review article acknowledges the evidence base for LDCT screening and will discuss the challenges that still need to be overcome in an attempt to answer the question: are we ready to implement in Europe?

Prevention and Early Detection for NSCLC: Advances in Thoracic Oncology 2018.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Tobacco consumption remains the most important risk factor. Although the prevalence of smoking has decreased overall, it continues to be a significant burden for global health. It is estimated that there are still nearly 1 billion cigarette smokers worldwide. Prevention strategies have largely focused on tobacco control and prevention. However, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of e-cigarettes and other vaping products. Primary chemoprevention has historically not been a successful strategy for lung cancer; however, focused approaches in specific groups of patients at high risk for development of lung cancer are underway. The majority of cases with NSCLC are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, where the overall prognosis remains very poor. Early-stage NSCLC on the other hand has a much better prognosis and can usually be treated radically with either surgical resection or radical radiotherapy, with relatively favorable long-term outcomes. In addition to image-based screening, other methods such as breath-based and biofluid-based approaches are now being investigated for early detection of NSCLC. This review will focus on recent advancements in the field of prevention, screening, and early detection of NSCLC.