Did psychosocial status, sociodemographics and smoking status affect non-attendance in control participants in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial? A nested observational study

Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation

Introduction

Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) trials and real-world programs is low, with many people at high-risk for lung cancer opting out of baseline screening after registering interest. We aimed to identify the potential drivers of participation in LCS in the Australian setting, to inform future implementation.

Methods

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals at high-risk of lung cancer who were eligible for screening and who had either participated (‘screeners’) or declined to participate (‘decliners’) in the International Lung Screening Trial from two Australian sites. Interview guide development was informed by the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the COM-B model of behaviour to explore capability, opportunity and motivation related to screening behaviour.

Results

Thirty-nine participants were interviewed (25 screeners; 14 decliners). Motivation to participate in screening was high in both groups driven by the lived experience of lung cancer and a belief that screening is valuable, however decliners unlike their screening counterparts reported low self-efficacy. Decliners in our study reported challenges in capability including ability to attend and in knowledge and understanding. Decliners also reported challenges related to physical and social opportunity, in particular location as a barrier and lack of family support to attend screening.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that motivation alone may not be sufficient to change behaviour related to screening participation, unless capability and opportunity are also considered. Focusing strategies on barriers related to capability and opportunity such as online/telephone support, mobile screening programs and financial assistance for screeners may better enhance screening participation. Providing funding for clinicians to support individuals in decision-making and belief in self-efficacy may foster motivation. Targeting interventions that connect eligible individuals with the LCS program will be crucial for successful implementation.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

Psychosocial consequences of a three-month follow-up after receiving an abnormal lung cancer CT-screening result: A longitudinal survey

BACKGROUND

Participation in lung cancer CT-screening can be associated with a need for follow-up procedures. The screening and waiting for test results introduce the risk of experiencing psychosocial consequences. Therefore, the aims of this study were: 1) To investigate if the psychosocial consequences changed from before an annual screening round to before a three-month follow-up CT-scan in participants with a positive screening result. 2) To investigate potential differences in psychosocial consequences between false positives (FP) and true positives (TP). FP were defined as those where cancer was not confirmed in the follow-up CT-scan and TP where it was.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This longitudinal study was based on data from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). The Consequences of Screening - Lung cancer (COS-LC) questionnaire was used to measure psychosocial consequences among 130 participants who all received an abnormal CT-screening result at their annual screening round. Eligible participants completed the COS-LC before their annual CT-screening and before the three-month follow-up.

RESULTS

We found a statistically significant increase in negative psychosocial consequences between the annual lung cancer CT-screening and the three-month follow-up CT-scan in four of nine psychosocial scales; Sense of dejection, Self-blame, Focus on airway symptoms and Harm of smoking. Furthermore, an increase, however not statistically significant, was identified in all remaining scales, except for the scale Stigmatisation which was slightly decreased. We found no evidence of an association between psychosocial consequences and diagnostic groups, FP and TP.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in negative psychosocial consequences was observed between the annual lung cancer CT-screening and the three-month follow-up CT-scan. Since we found no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic groups, the increase in negative psychosocial consequences is interpreted as a nocebo effect of living three months in uncertainty not knowing if one's positive CT-screening result was true or false.

Participation in lung cancer screening

Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of CT screening programmes.