"To know or not to know…?" Push and pull in ever smokers lung screening uptake decision-making intentions

The present and future of lung cancer screening: latest evidence

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Early lung cancer detection improves lung cancer-related mortality and survival. This report summarizes presentations and panel discussions from a webinar, "The Present and Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Latest Evidence and AI Perspectives." The webinar provided the perspectives of experts from the United States, United Kingdom, and China on evidence-based recommendations and management in lung cancer screening (LCS), barriers, and the role of artificial intelligence (AI). With several countries now incorporating the utilization of AI in their screening programs, AI offers potential solutions to some of the challenges associated with LCS.

Racism, discrimination, medical mistrust, stigma, and lung cancer screening: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer-specific mortality, but it is widely underutilized, especially among minoritized populations that bear a disproportionate burden of lung cancer, such as Black Americans. Racism, discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma contribute to lower uptake of preventive screenings in general, but the role these factors play in lung cancer screening is unclear. We therefore conducted a scoping review to synthesize the literature regarding how racism, discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma relate to lung cancer screening.

DESIGN

Informed by PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched five databases for relevant literature, and two trained researchers independently reviewed articles for relevance. We conducted a narrative, descriptive analysis of included articles.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies met our inclusion criteria. Most articles reported on medical mistrust or one of its cognates (e.g. trust and distrust, n = 37) and/or stigma (n = 25), with several articles focusing on multiple constructs. Few articles reported on racism (n = 3), and n = 1 article reported on discrimination. Results from empirical studies suggest that medical mistrust, distrust, and stigma may be barriers to lung cancer screening, whereas trust in health care providers may facilitate screening. The articles reporting on racism were commentaries calling attention to the impact of racism on lung cancer screening in Black populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, novel interventions are needed to promote trust and reduce mistrust, distrust, and stigma in lung cancer screening initiatives. Dedicated efforts are especially needed to understand and address the roles that racism and discrimination may play in lung cancer screening.

Systems mapping: a novel approach to national lung cancer screening implementation in Australia

Background

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been started in some high-income countries and is being considered in others. In many settings uptake remains low. Optimal strategies to increase uptake, including for high-risk subgroups, have not been elucidated. This study used a system dynamics approach based on expert consensus to identify (I) the likely determinants of screening uptake and (II) interactions between these determinants that may affect screening uptake.

Methods

Consensus data on key factors influencing screening uptake were developed from existing literature and through two stakeholder workshops involving clinical and consumer experts. These factors were used to develop a causal loop diagram (CLD) of lung cancer screening uptake.

Results

The CLD comprised three main perspectives of importance for a lung cancer screening program: participant, primary care, and health system. Eight key drivers in the system were identified within these perspectives that will likely influence screening uptake: (I) patient stigma; (II) patient fear of having lung cancer; (III) patient health literacy; (IV) patient waiting time for a scan appointment; (V) general practitioner (GP) capacity; (VI) GP clarity on next steps after an abnormal computed tomography (CT); (VII) specialist capacity to accept referrals and undertake evaluation; and (VIII) healthcare capacity for scanning and reporting. Five key system leverage points to optimise screening uptake were also identified: (I) patient stigma influencing willingness to receive a scan; (II) GP capacity for referral to scans; (III) GP capacity to increase patients' health literacy; (IV) specialist capacity to connect patients with timely treatment; and (V) healthcare capacity to reduce scanning waiting times.

Conclusions

This novel approach to investigation of lung cancer screening implementation, based on Australian expert stakeholder consensus, provides a system-wide view of critical factors that may either limit or promote screening uptake.

Patient Perspectives on a Patient-Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development.

AIM

This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach.

METHODS

We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider-facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient-facing SDM tool.

RESULTS

The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient-facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient-provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.

Exploring Whether and How People Experiencing High Deprivation Access Diagnostic Services: A Qualitative Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

To contribute to addressing diagnostic health inequalities in the United Kingdom, this review aimed to investigate determinants of diagnostic service use amongst people experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using three databases (EBSCO, Web of Science and SCOPUS) to search studies pertaining to diagnostic service use amongst people experiencing high deprivation. Search terms related to diagnostics, barriers and facilitators to access and deprivation. Articles were included if they discussed facilitators and/or barriers to diagnostic service access, contained participants' direct perspectives and focussed on individuals experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom. Articles were excluded if the full text was unretrievable, only abstracts were available, the research did not focus on adults experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom, those not including participants' direct perspectives (e.g., quantitative studies) and papers unavailable in English.

RESULTS

Of 14,717 initial papers, 18 were included in the final review. Determinants were grouped into three themes (Beliefs and Behaviours, Emotional and Psychological Factors and Practical Factors), made up of 15 sub-themes. These were mapped to a conceptual model, which illustrates that Beliefs and Behaviours interact with Emotional and Psychological Factors to influence Motivation to access diagnostic services. Motivation then influences and is influenced by Practical Factors, resulting in a Decision to Access or Not. This decision influences Beliefs and Behaviours and/or Emotional and Psychological Factors such that the cycle begins again.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making regarding diagnostic service use for people experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom is complex. The conceptual model illustrates this complexity, as well as the mediative, interactive and iterative nature of the process. The model should be applied in policy and practice to enable understanding of the factors influencing access to diagnostic services and to design interventions that address identified determinants.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Consulting lived experience experts was imperative in understanding whether and how the existing literature captures the lived experience of those experiencing high deprivation in South England. The model was presented to lived experience experts, who corroborated findings, highlighted significant factors for them and introduced issues that were not identified in the review.

Facilitators and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening during Long COVID: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Study Synthesis of Qualitative Research

Background: Participation in targeted screening reduces lung cancer mortality by 30-60%, but screening is not universally available. Therefore, the study aimed to synthesize the evidence and identify facilitators and barriers to lung cancer screening participation globally. Methods: Two reviewers screened primary studies using qualitative methods published up to February 2023. We used two-phase synthesis consistent with a meta-study methodology to create an interpretation of lung cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies, carried out a thematic analysis of group themes as specific facilitators and barriers, systematically compared investigations for similarities and differences, and performed meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of lung cancer screening participation. We used the Social Ecological Model to organize and interpret the themes: individual, interpersonal, social/cultural, and organizational/structural levels. Results: Fifty-two articles met the final inclusion criteria. Themes identified as facilitating lung cancer screening included prioritizing patient education, quality of communication, and quality of provider-initiated encounter/coordination of care (individual patient and provider level), quality of the patient-provider relationship (interpersonal group), perception of a life's value and purpose (cultural status), quality of tools designed, and care coordination (and organizational level). Themes coded as barriers included low awareness, fear of cancer diagnosis, low perceived benefit, high perceived risk of low-dose computerized tomography, concern about cancer itself, practical obstacle, futility, stigma, lack of family support, COVID-19 fear, disruptions in cancer care due to COVID-19, inadequate knowledge of care providers, shared decision, and inadequate time (individual level), patient misunderstanding, poor rapport, provider recommendation, lack of established relationship, and confusing decision aid tools (interpersonal group), distrust in the service, fatalistic beliefs, and perception of aging (cultural level), and lack of institutional policy, lack of care coordinators, inadequate infrastructure, absence of insurance coverage, and costs (and organizational status). Conclusions: This study identified critical barriers, facilitators, and implications to lung cancer screening participation. Therefore, we employed strategies for a new digital medicine (artificial intelligence) screening method to balance the cost-benefit, "workdays" lost in case of disease, and family hardship, which is essential to improve lung cancer screening uptake.

Assessing and Identifying Improvements for Lung Cancer Screening in a Rural Population: A Human-Centered Design and Systems Approach

Although lung cancer claims more lives than any other cancer in the United States, screening is severely underutilized, with <6% of eligible patients screened nationally in 2021 versus 76% for breast cancer and 67% for colorectal cancer. This article describes an effort to identify key reasons for the underutilization of lung cancer screening in a rural population and to develop interventions to address these barriers suitable for both a large health system and local community clinics. Data were generated from 26 stakeholder interviews (clinicians, clinical staff, and eligible patients), a review of key systems (Electronic Health Record and billing records), and feedback on the feasibility of several potential interventions by health care system staff. These data informed a human-centered design approach to identify possible interventions within a complex health care system by exposing gaps in care processes and electronic health record platforms that can lead patients to be overlooked for potentially life-saving screening. Deployed interventions included communication efforts focused on (1) increasing patient awareness, (2) improving physician patient identification, and (3) supporting patient management. Preliminary outcomes are discussed.

Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland.

METHODS

We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.

Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study

INTRODUCTION

Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study.

METHODS

Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo.

FINDINGS

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend

INTRODUCTION

There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible.

METHODS

Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

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 perspectives of survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma on lung cancer screening: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (HLS) are at excess risk of lung cancer as a consequence of HL treatment. HLS without a heavy smoking history are currently unable to access lung cancer screening (LCS) programmes aimed at ever smokers, and there is an unmet need to develop a targeted LCS programme. In this study we prospectively explored HLS perspectives on a future LCS programme, including motivating factors and potential barriers to participation, with the aim of identifying ways to optimise uptake in a future programme.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with HLS, aged 18-80 and lymphoma-free for ≥5 years, selected from a clinical database (ADAPT). Participants provided informed consent. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Despite awareness of other late effects, most participants were unaware of their excess risk of lung cancer. Most were willing to participate in a future LCS programme, citing the potential curability of early-stage lung cancer and reassurance as motivating factors, whilst prior experience of healthcare was a facilitator. Whilst the screening test (a low dose CT scan) was considered acceptable, radiation risk was a concern for some and travel and time off work were potential barriers to participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that most HLS would participate in a future LCS programme, motivated by perceived benefits. Their feedback identified a need to develop educational materials addressing lung cancer risk and concerns about screening, including radiation risk. Such materials could be provided upon an invitation to LCS. Uptake in a future programme may be further optimized by offering flexible screening appointments close to home.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.

Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA for both men and women, and also worldwide, it is the commonest cause of cancer death. The five-year survival rate for LC depends on the stage at which it is diagnosed. It is over 50% for cases detected in a localized stage but when the disease has spread to other organs, the five-year survival rate is only 5%. Unfortunately, only 16% of LC cases are diagnosed at an early stage. In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual LC screening with low dose chest computed tomography (CT) in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, based on the evidence from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the USA. When it comes to recruiting the target group for lung cancer screening (LCS), there are several barriers to overcome, such as whom exactly to include, where to find the target group, how to convince the target to participate or how to attract participants from all socioeconomic groups. The aim of this review is to find out what is already known about how the target group for LCS can be contacted and how participation can be improved, since uptake is a key issue in every (cancer) screening program. A review of the literature was conducted using 'lung cancer screening and participation and uptake' as search string. We searched in Web of Science and PubMed for reviews, systematic reviews and articles, published between 2015 and 2020. Compared to the target groups for screening in the long-running cancer screening programs of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer, there are several additional obstacles regarding defining, locating and recruiting of the target group for LCS. Shared decision-making is crucial when we want to reach the hard to reach for LCS and it should be improved, by educating primary care practitioners about LCS guidelines and providing them with the necessary tools, such as decision aids, to facilitate their job in this respect. Moreover, the information materials should be more tailored to specific groups who participate least.

False-Negative Results in Lung Cancer Screening-Evidence and Controversies

Identifying false-negative cases is an important quality metric in lung cancer screening, but it has been infrequently and variably reported in previous studies. Although as a proportion of all screening participants, false-negative cases are uncommon, such cases may constitute a substantial proportion of all lung cancers diagnosed (up to 15%) within a screening program. This article reviews the impact and causes of false-negative lung cancer screening tests, including those related to radiologic evaluation, nodule management protocols, and management decisions made by multidisciplinary teams. Following a review of data from international screening studies, this article discusses the controversies within the screening literature surrounding the definition and classification of a false-negative lung cancer screening test and how data on false-negative rates should be captured and recorded. Challenges, such as avoiding overly cautious surveillance of lung nodules while minimizing overdiagnosis and investigation of indolent or benign lesions, are considered. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to dealing with false-negative results in lung cancer screening are discussed.

Implementation of a Lung Cancer Screening Program in Two Federally Qualified Health Centers

Using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for lung cancer is associated with improved outcomes among eligible current and former smokers (ie, aged 55-77, at least 30-pack-year smoking history, current smoker or former smoker who quit within the past 15 years). However, the overall uptake of LDCT is low, especially in health care settings with limited personnel and financial resources. To increase access to lung cancer screening services, the American Cancer Society partnered with 2 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Tennessee and West Virginia to conduct a pilot project focused on developing and refining the LDCT screening referral processes and practices. Each FQHC was required to partner with an American College of Radiology-designated lung cancer screening center in its area to ensure high-quality patient care. The pilot project was conducted in 2 phases: 6 months of capacity building (January-June 2016) followed by 2 years of implementation (July 2016-June 2018). One site created a sustainable LDCT referral program, and the other site encountered numerous barriers and failed to overcome them. This case study highlights implementation barriers and factors associated with success and improved outcomes in LDCT screening.

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.

Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis

Background

Although new screening programmes with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening‐eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood.

Objective

To describe how current and former long‐term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening.

Design

Phone interviews using a semi‐structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening‐eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques.

Setting and participants

A subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements.

Results

The sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening‐eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x‐ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen.

Discussion and conclusions

Education initiatives aimed at providers and long‐term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates.

"To know or not to know…?" Push and pull in ever smokers lung screening uptake decision-making intentions

BACKGROUND

In the United States, lung cancer screening aims to detect cancer early in nonsymptomatic current and former smokers. A lung screening pilot service in an area of high lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom has been designed based on United States trial evidence. However, our understanding of acceptability and reasons for lung screening uptake or decline in a United Kingdom nontrial context are currently limited.

OBJECTIVE

To explore with ever smokers the acceptability of targeted lung screening and uptake decision-making intentions.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured focus groups and inductive thematic analysis to explore acceptability and uptake decision-making intentions with people of similar characteristics to lung screening eligible individuals.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three participants (22 ex-smokers; 11 smokers) men and women, smokers and ex-smokers, aged 50-80 were recruited purposively from community and health settings in Manchester, England.

RESULTS

Lung screening was widely acceptable to participants. It was seen as offering reassurance about lung health or opportunity for early detection and treatment. Participant's desire to know about their lung health via screening was impacted by perceived benefits; emotions such as worry about a diagnosis and screening tests; practicalities such as accessibility; and smoking-related issues including perceptions of individual risk and smoking stigma.

DISCUSSION

Decision making was multifaceted with indications that current smokers faced higher participation barriers than ex-smokers. Reducing participation barriers through careful service design and provision of decision support information will be important in lung screening programmes to support informed consent and equitable uptake.

Lung Cancer Screening, Towards a Multidimensional Approach: Why and How?

Early-stage treatment improves prognosis of lung cancer and two large randomized controlled trials have shown that early detection with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality. Despite this, lung cancer screening (LCS) remains challenging. In the context of a global shortage of radiologists, the high rate of false-positive LDCT results in overloading of existing lung cancer clinics and multidisciplinary teams. Thus, to provide patients with earlier access to life-saving surgical interventions, there is an urgent need to improve LDCT-based LCS and especially to reduce the false-positive rate that plagues the current detection technology. In this context, LCS can be improved in three ways: (1) by refining selection criteria (risk factor assessment), (2) by using Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) to make it easier to interpret chest CTs, and (3) by using biological blood signatures for early cancer detection, to both spot the optimal target population and help classify lung nodules. These three main ways of improving LCS are discussed in this review.