Smokers' interest in a lung cancer screening programme: a national survey in England

Intention to have blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening: a cross-sectional population-based survey in England

BACKGROUND

Trials assessing the clinical utility of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are underway. Understanding public attitudes towards MCED screening is essential if these tests are to be used. We aimed to quantify MCED screening intention and potential barriers and facilitators to uptake.

METHODS

Adults aged 50-77 (n = 958) completed an online survey. The primary outcome was intention to have MCED screening if offered. Psychological variables including barriers and facilitators were assessed. We used logistic regressions to explore associations between socio-demographics and psychological factors and intention.

RESULTS

93.8% of participants said they would 'definitely' or 'probably' have MCED screening if offered. Intention was significantly associated with previous screening participation and general cancer attitudes but not with socio-demographic factors. Participants were more likely to be intenders if they had higher health motivation, and perceived greater benefits of blood tests. Participants were less likely to be intenders if they perceived greater disadvantages of blood tests, more practical barriers, were more worried about the outcome and more concerned about a positive result.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

MCED screening intention was high. The lack of socio-demographic variation suggests equitable interest in this type of screening; however, future research should consider how intention translates to uptake.

Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) pathway navigation study: a protocol for a nested randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a pathway navigation intervention on lung cancer screening uptake

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death globally. In 2022 the UK National Screening Committee recommended the implementation of a national targeted lung cancer screening programme, aiming to improve early diagnosis and survival rates. Research studies and services internationally consistently observe socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in screening uptake. Pathway navigation (PN) is a process through which a trained pathway navigator guides people to overcome barriers to accessing healthcare services, including screening. This nested randomised controlled trial aims to determine whether a PN intervention results in more individuals participating in lung cancer screening compared with the usual written invitation within a previous non-responder population as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-arm randomised controlled trial and process evaluation nested within the YLST. Participants aged 55-80 (inclusive) who have not responded to previous postal invitations to screening will be randomised by household to receive PN or usual care (a further postal invitation to contact the screening service for a lung health check) between March 2023 and October 2024. The PN intervention includes a postal appointment notification and prearranged telephone appointment, during which a pathway navigator telephones the participant, following a four-step protocol to introduce the offer and conduct an initial risk assessment. If eligible, participants are invited to book a low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening scan. All pathway navigators receive training from behavioural psychologists on motivational interviewing and communication techniques to elicit barriers to screening attendance and offer solutions.

COPRIMARY OUTCOMES

The number undergoing initial telephone assessment of lung cancer risk. The number undergoing an LDCT screening scan.Secondary outcomes include demographic, clinical and risk parameters of people undergoing telephone risk assessment; the number of people eligible for screening following telephone risk assessment; the number of screen-detected cancers diagnosed; costs and a mixed-methods process evaluation.Descriptive analyses will be used to present numbers, proportions and quantitative components of the process evaluation. Primary comparisons of differences between groups will be made using logistic regression. Applied thematic analysis will be used to interpret qualitative data within a conceptual framework based on the COM-B framework. A health economic analysis of the PN intervention will also be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following the Confidentiality Advisory Group review. Results will be shared through peer-reviewed scientific journals, conference presentations and on the YLST website.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110.

Cell-free DNA methylation in the clinical management of lung cancer

The clinical use of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylation in managing lung cancer depends on its ability to differentiate between malignant and healthy cells, assign methylation changes to specific tissue sources, and elucidate opportunities for targeted therapy. From a technical standpoint, cfDNA methylation analysis is primed as a potential clinical tool for lung cancer screening, early diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment, pending the outcome of elaborate validation studies. Here, we discuss the current state of the art in cfDNA methylation analysis, examine the unique features and limitations of these new methods in a clinical context, propose two models for applying cfDNA methylation data for lung cancer screening, and discuss future research directions.

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.

Determinants of Willingness to Undergo Lung Cancer Screening among High-Risk Current and Ex-smokers in Sabah, Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Attitudes towards smoking, lung cancer screening, and perceived risk of lung cancer have not been widely studied in Malaysia. The primary objective of this study was to describe the factors affecting the willingness of high-risk current smokers and ex-smokers to undergo low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer.

METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted in current smokers or ex-smokers aged between 55 and 80 years at three hospitals in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. The questionnaire recorded the following parameters: perceived lung cancer risk; Prostate Lung Colon Ovarian Cancer 2012 risk prediction model excluding race and ethnicity predictor (PLCOm2012norace); demographic characteristics; psychosocial characteristics; and attitudes towards lung cancer and lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

A vast majority of the 95 respondents (94.7%) indicated their willingness to undergo screening. Stigma of lung cancer, low levels of knowledge about lung cancer symptoms, concerns about financial constraints, and a preference for traditional medication were still prevalent among the respondents, and they may represent potential barriers to lung cancer screening uptake. A desire to have an early diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 11.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53 to 84.05; p=0.02), perceived time constraints (OR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.32 to 11.73; p=0.01), and proximity of LDCT screening facilities (OR, 14.33; 95% CI, 1.84 to 111.4; p=0.01) had significantly higher odds of willingness to undergo screening.

CONCLUSION

Although high-risk current smokers and ex-smokers are likely to undergo screening for lung cancer, several psychosocial barriers persist. The results of this study may guide the policymakers and clinicians regarding the need to improve lung cancer awareness in our population.

Motivation, acceptability and attitudes toward lung cancer screening among persons who attend a tobacco cessation program: A multicenter survey in Italy

This study aimed to evaluate smoking cessation (SC) motivation and the acceptability of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among people who attend SC programs. A multicenter survey was conducted in the period January-December 2021 involving 197 people who attended group or individual SC courses in Reggio Emilia and Tuscany. Questionnaires, information sheets, and decision aids about the potential benefits and harms of LCS with LDCT were distributed at different time points during the course. The wish to protect own health (66%) was the most frequent reason given for quitting smoking, followed by cigarette dependence (40.6%) and current health problems (30.5%). Half of the participants (56%) considered periodic health checks including LDCT, as an advantageous activity. The great majority of participants were in favor of LCS (92%), with only 8% being indifferent, and no one was against these programs. Interestingly, those with sufficiently high smoking-related LC risk to be eligible for LCS and those attending the individual course were less in favor of LCS but also less concerned about the possible harms associated with LCS. The type of counseling was a significant predictor for both LCS acceptability and perceived harm of LCS. The favorable perception of LCS in people attending SC courses, despite the considerable preoccupation with potential harms, is an important finding of this study. Introducing a discussion on the benefits and harms of LCS in SC programs may prepare persons who smoke to make informed decisions on utilizing LCS.

Public Attitudes Towards Lung Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and it is ranked as the first cause of death in more than 100 countries around the world. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitude of the general population in Saudi Arabia toward lung cancer screening.

Methods

A cross-sectional study employing an online survey was conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 in Saudi Arabia. This study utilized a previously developed questionnaire instrument. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of positive attitude toward lung cancer screening.

Results

A total of 473 participants were involved in this study. The majority of the study participants (74.6%) reported that they are current smokers. Almost 31.5% of the study participants reported that if lung cancer is detected early, the person's chance of surviving is poor to very poor. The majority of the study participants reported that they would be willing to do tests to diagnose lung cancer if you were invited by the Ministry of Health or their doctor. Males, participants aged (24-34 years), and current smokers were more likely to have positive attitude towards lung cancer screening (p ≤ 0.05). On the other hand, patients aged 46 years and over and those with higher education had less positive attitude towards lung cancer screening (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

This is the first study to look into the general public's attitudes toward lung cancer screening in Saudi Arabia. According to our findings, the majority of people believe that early detection of lung cancer can lead to improved results and have a favourable attitude toward lung cancer screening if it is indicated. Thus, incorporating lung cancer screening into the local guidelines in at-risk population is highly recommended and considering the launch of nation-wide lung cancer screening program is advised.

Disparity in Lung Cancer Screening Among Smokers and Nonsmokers in China: Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is effective in reducing lung cancer mortality in smokers; however, the evidence in nonsmokers is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the participant rate and effectiveness of one-off LDCT screening for lung cancer among smokers and nonsmokers.

METHODS

A population-based prospective cohort study was performed to enroll participants aged between 40 and 74 years from 2013 to 2019 from 4 cities in Zhejiang Province, China. Participants who were evaluated as having a high risk of lung cancer from an established risk score model were recommended to undergo LDCT screening. Follow-up outcomes were retrieved on June 30, 2020. The uptake rate of LDCT screening for evaluated high-risk participants and the detection rate of early-stage lung cancer (stage 0-I) were calculated. The lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality were compared between the screened and nonscreened groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, 62.56% (18,818/30,079) of smokers and 6% (5483/91,455) of nonsmokers were identified as high risk (P<.001), of whom 41.9% (7885/18,818) and 66.31% (3636/5483) underwent LDCT screening (P<.001), respectively. After a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 1100 lung cancer cases and 456 all-cause death cases (116 lung cancer death cases) were traced. The proportion of early-stage lung cancer among smokers was 60.3% (173/287), which was lower than the proportion of 80.3% (476/593) among nonsmokers (P<.001). Among smokers, a higher proportion was found in the screened group (72/106, 67.9%) than the nonscreened group (56/114, 49.1%; P=.005), whereas no significance was found (42/44, 96% vs 10/12, 83%; P=.20) among nonsmokers. Compared with participants who were not screened, LDCT screening in smokers significantly increased lung cancer incidence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; P=.007) but reduced lung cancer mortality (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.96; P=.04) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32-0.69; P<.001). Among nonsmokers, no significant results were found for lung cancer incidence (P=.06), all-cause mortality (P=.89), and lung cancer mortality (P=.17).

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening effectively reduces lung cancer and all-cause mortality among high-risk smokers. Further efforts to define high-risk populations and explore adequate lung cancer screening modalities for nonsmokers are needed.

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.

Emotions and lung cancer screening: Prioritising a humanistic approach to care

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening has mortality benefits. Yet, uptake has been low. To inform strategies to better deliver and promote screening, in 2018, we interviewed 27 long-term smokers immediately following lung cancer screening in Australia, prior to receiving scan results. Existing lung screening studies employ the Health Belief Model. Reflecting growing acknowledgement of the centrality of emotions to screening uptake, we draw on psychological and sociological theories on emotions to thematically and abductively analyse the emotional dimensions of lung cancer screening, with implications for screening promotion and delivery. As smokers, interviewees described feeling stigmatised, with female participants internalising and male participants resisting stigma. Guilt and fear related to lung cancer were described as screening motivators. The screening itself elicited mild positive emotions. Notably, interviewees expressed gratitude for the care implicitly shown through lung screening to smokers. More than individual risk assessment, findings suggest lung screening campaigns should prioritise emotions. Peer workers have been found to increase cancer screening uptake in marginalised communities, however the risk to confidentiality-especially for female smokers-limits its feasibility in lung cancer screening. Instead, we suggest involving peer consultants in developing targeted screening strategies that foreground emotions. Furthermore, findings suggest prioritising humanistic care in lung screening delivery. Such an approach may be especially important for smokers from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who perceive lung cancer screening and smoking as sources of stigma and face a higher risk of dying from lung cancer and lower engagement with screening.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung cancer screening: A mixed methods systematic review

Numerous factors contribute to the low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) programs. A theory-informed approach to identifying the obstacles and facilitators to LCS uptake is required. This study aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize the available literature at the individual and healthcare provider (HCP) levels based on a social-ecological model and identify gaps to improve practice and policy decision-making. Systematic searches were conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to December 31, 2020. We also searched Google Scholar and manually examined the reference lists of systematic reviews to include relevant articles. Primary studies were scored for quality assessment. Among 3938 potentially relevant articles, 36 studies, including 25 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, were identified for inclusion in the review. Fifteen common factors were extracted from 34 studies, including nine barriers and six facilitators. The barriers included individual factors (n = 5), health system factors (n = 3), and social/environmental factors (n = 1). The facilitators included only individual factors (n = 6). However, two factors, age and screening harm, remain mixed. This systematic review identified and combined barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake at the individual and HCP levels. The interaction mechanisms among these factors should be further explored, which will allow the construction of tailored LCS recommendations or interventions for the Chinese context.

Level of knowledge on low-dose CT lung cancer screening in Sichuan province, China: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Low-dose CT (LDCT) can help determine the early stage of lung cancer and reduce mortality. However, knowledge of lung cancer and lung cancer screening among community residents and medical workers, and potential factors that may affect medical institutions to set up LDCT are limited.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Sichuan province, China, in 2021. Community residents, medical workers and medical institutions were randomly selected, and participants responded to related questionnaires. Knowledge of lung cancer and LDCT lung cancer screening was evaluated. Data analyses were performed using SAS V.9.4.

RESULTS

A total of 35 692 residents, 6350 medical workers and 81 medical institutions were recruited; 4.05% of the residents were very familiar with lung cancer and 37.89% were (completely) unfamiliar. Characteristics, such as age and level of education, were significantly related to residents who were very familiar with lung cancer. Furthermore, 22.87% of the residents knew that LDCT can effectively screen for early-stage lung cancer, which was correlated with smoking (OR 1.1300; 95% CI 1.0540 to 1.2110; p=0.006) and family history of cancer (OR 1.2210; 95% CI 1.1400 to 1.3080; p<0.0001); 66.06% of medical workers believed that LDCT can detect early-stage lung cancer. Technicians and nurses were less knowledgeable than doctors about whether LDCT can effectively screen for early-stage lung cancer (OR 0.6976; 95% CI 0.5399 to 0.9015; p=0.0059 and OR 0.6970; 95% CI 0.5718 to 0.8496; p=0.0004, respectively). Setting up LDCT in medical institutions was related to grade, administrative rank, number of hospital beds that opened and total number of medical workers.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge of lung cancer in residents is relatively low, and the knowledge of LDCT in screening (early-stage) lung cancer needs to be improved both in residents and medical workers. Possible factors that affect medical institutions to set up LDCT may need to be incorporated.

European lung cancer screening: valuable trial evidence for optimal practice implementation

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography is a strategy for secondary prevention of lung cancer. In the last two decades, LCS trials showed several options to practice secondary prevention in association with primary prevention, however, the translation from trial to practice is everything but simple. In 2020, the European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society published their joint statement paper on LCS. This commentary aims to provide the readership with detailed description about hurdles and potential solutions that could be encountered in the practice of LCS.

Likely uptake of a future a lung cancer screening programme in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors: a questionnaire study

Background

Many Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors are at increased risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN), including lung cancer, due to previous treatment for HL. Lung cancer screening (LCS) detects early-stage lung cancers in ever smokers but HL survivors without a heavy smoking history are ineligible for screening. There is a rationale to develop a targeted LCS. The aim of this study was to investigate levels of willingness to undergo LCS in HL survivors, and to identify the psycho-social factors associated with screening hesitancy.

Methods

A postal questionnaire was sent to 281 HL survivors registered in a long-term follow-up database and at increased risk of SMNs. Demographic, lung cancer risk factors, psycho-social and LCS belief variables were measured. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with lung cancer screening hesitancy, defined as those who would ‘probably’ or ‘probably not’ participate.

Results

The response rate to the questionnaire was 58% (n = 165). Participants were more likely to be female, older and living in a less deprived area than non-participants. Uptake (at any time) of breast and bowel cancer screening among those previously invited was 99% and 77% respectively. 159 participants were at excess risk of lung cancer. The following results refer to these 159. Around half perceived themselves to be at greater risk of lung cancer than their peers. Only 6% were eligible for lung cancer screening pilots aimed at ever smokers in the UK. 98% indicated they would probably or definitely participate in LCS were it available. Psycho-social variables associated with LCS hesitancy on multivariable analysis were male gender (OR 5.94 CI 1.64–21.44, p < 0.01), living in an area with a high index of multiple deprivation decile (deciles 6–10) (OR 8.22 CI 1.59–42.58, p < 0.05) and lower levels of self-efficacy (OR 1.64 CI 1.30–2.08 p < 0.01).

Conclusion

HL survivors responding to this survey were willing to participate in a future LCS programme but there was some hesitancy. A future LCS trial for HL survivors should consider the factors associated with screening hesitancy in order to minimise barriers to participation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-022-01959-3.

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 Future of Lung Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Research Priorities

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, primarily because most people present when the stage is too advanced to offer any reasonable chance of cure. Over the last two decades, evidence has accumulated to show that early detection of lung cancer, using low-radiation dose computed tomography, in people at higher risk of the condition reduces their mortality. Many countries are now making progress with implementing programmes, although some have concerns about cost-effectiveness. Lung cancer screening is complex, and many factors influence clinical and cost-effectiveness. It is important to develop strategies to optimise each element of the intervention from selection and participation through optimal scanning, management of findings and treatment. The overall aim is to maximise benefits and minimise harms. Additional integrated interventions must include at least smoking cessation. In this review, we summarize the evidence that has accumulated to guide optimisation of lung cancer screening, discuss the remaining open questions about the best approach and identify potential barriers to successful implementation.

Development and psychometric testing of the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening (SRQ-LCS)

BACKGROUND

Research implicates psychological factors in low uptake of lung cancer screening. We developed and psychometrically tested a standardised measure of these psychological determinants in preparation for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of screening uptake.

METHODS

Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation of Health and Illness provided the theoretical framework to generate the initial item pool. Items were refined during expert review and cognitive interviews which tested for face validity, redundancy, acceptability and comprehensibility. An online survey piloted the refined pool with 1500 current and former (quit ≤ 15 years) smokers aged 55-80. The response distributions, internal reliability and factor structure determined the final retained constructs. Regression analyses examined these constructs' associations with screening intention, smoking status and demographics.

RESULTS

The final measure included seven factor-derived subscales (consequences, personal control, treatment control, illness coherence, emotional representation, behavioural response and appraisal, risk perception) with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.59 to 0.91 and four single-item questions (response efficacy for smoking cessation, treatment intention, perceived stigma and lung cancer survival). Most constructs were associated with smoking status and screening intention (p's < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Self-Regulatory Questionnaire for Lung Cancer Screening (SRQ-LCS) is an acceptable, reliable and valid measure for investigating the psychological determinants of screening uptake.

Impact of Smoking Status on Lung Cancer Characteristics and Mortality Rates between Screened and Non-Screened Lung Cancer Cohorts: Real-World Knowledge Translation and Education

This was a retrospective hospital-based cohort study of participants diagnosed with lung cancer in the lung cancer register database, and our goal was to evaluate the impact of smoking and screening status on lung cancer characteristics and clinical outcomes. According to the hospital-based lung cancer register database, a total of 2883 lung cancers were diagnosed in 2883 patients between January 2007 and September 2017, which were divided into four groups according to smoking and screening status. A comparison was performed in terms of clinical characteristics and outcomes of lung cancer between the four groups. For non-smokers, age, gender, screened status, tumor size, targeted therapy, and curative surgery were independent prognostic factors of overall survival for lung cancer subjects. However, screened status and gender were not significant prognostic factors for lung cancer survival in smokers with lung cancer. For the non-smoker group, about 4.9% of lung cancer subjects (N = 81) were detected by screening. However, only 0.97% of lung cancer subjects (N = 12) were detected by screening in smokers. This could be attributed to smokers' negative attitudes and low socioeconomic status preventing LDCT lung cancer screening. In summary, our real-world data suggest that effectively encouraging smokers to be more willing to participate in lung cancer screening programs with screening allowance and educational training in the future is an important issue.

Psychological Targets for Lung Cancer Screening Uptake: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening by high-risk groups compromises its effectiveness and equity as a population-level early detection strategy. Numerous psychological factors are implicated qualitatively or retrospectively, but prospective data are needed to validate their associations with uptake behavior and specify psychological targets for intervention.

METHODS

This is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake. Ever-smokers (aged 55-77 y) were invited to a lung health check, at which low-dose computed tomography screening was offered through the SUMMIT Study-a multicenter screening implementation trial. One week after their screening invitation, 44,000 invitees were mailed the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Regression analyses evaluated the constructs' associations with uptake (telephoning for an appointment) and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Higher odds of uptake were associated with both positive and negative perceptions. Positive perceptions included lung cancer controllability, benefits of early diagnosis, improved survival when lung cancer is detected early, willingness to be treated, and believing smoking cessation is effective in reducing risk. Negative perceptions included a higher lung cancer risk perception, negative beliefs about the consequences of lung cancer, perceiving lung cancer as stigmatized, and a negative emotional response. Although current smokers held the highest risk perceptions, they also reported negative perceptions that could undermine how they behave in response to their risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve uptake should focus on changing perceptions that affect how an individual reacts when they believe their risk of lung cancer is high.

Lung cancer screening: intention to participate and acceptability among Belgian smokers

OBJECTIVE

Next to the obvious benefits of tobacco-use cessation, lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans has been proposed as a means to lower lung cancer burden. Achieving an impact of any cancer screening program on cancer-specific mortality largely depends on the uptake. The aim of this study was to estimate the acceptability and intention to participate in a lung cancer screening program among Belgian current or former smokers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among adults from the Belgian population. Sampling took place within an existing online panel.

RESULTS

In total, 83.6% of all respondents (n = 2727), including current or former smokers and never smokers, believed that offering lung cancer screening to current or former smokers is a good idea. 84.3% of all current or former smokers (n = 1534) answered that they would likely or very likely participate in a screening program for lung cancer. The majority of current smokers that were willing to be screened said they would also want to receive tobacco-use cessation counseling in parallel with screening (71.8%; n = 486), whereas 9% (n = 61) would decline.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that a Belgian lung cancer screening program would be acceptable and could be well-attended by current or former smokers. Further research should focus on how smokers can be best reached to propose screening, and how tobacco-use cessation counseling can be successfully integrated in a lung cancer screening program.

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.

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.

To do or not to do - a survey study on factors associated with participating in the Danish screening program for colorectal cancer

Background

Screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) exist in many countries, and with varying participation rates. The present study aimed at identifying socio-demographic factors for accepting a cost-free screening offer for CRC in Denmark, and to study if more people would accept the screening offer if the present fecal test was replaced by a blood test.

Methods

We used a cross-sectional survey design based on a representative group of 6807 Danish citizens aged 50–80 years returning a fully answered web-based questionnaire with socio-demographic data added from national registries. Data were analyzed in STATA and based on bivariate analyses followed by regression models.

Results

Danes in general have a high level of lifetime participation (+ 80%) in the national CRC screening program. The results of the stepwise logistic regression model to predict CRC screening participation demonstrated that female gender, higher age, higher income, and moderate alcohol intake were positively associated with screening participation, whereas a negative association was observed for higher educational attainment, obesity, being a smoker, and higher willingness to take health risks. Of the 1026 respondents not accepting the screening offer, 61% were willing to reconsider their initial negative response if the fecal sampling procedure were replaced by blood sampling.

Conclusion

The CRC screening program intends to include the entire population within a certain at-risk age group. However, individual factors (e.g. sex, age obesity, smoking, risk aversity) appear to significantly affect willingness to participate in the screening program. From a preventive perspective, our findings indicate the need for a more targeted approach trying to reach these groups.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-06023-6.

Understanding the Associations between Smoking-Related Risk Perception, Interest in Quitting Smoking, and Interest in Lung Cancer Screening among Homeless Adult Smokers

Individuals experiencing homelessness smoke cigarettes at high rates, suffer a disproportionate incidence of lung cancer, but are unlikely to be screened to enhance early detection. Understanding correlates of lung cancer screening (LCS) interest within this vulnerable group may lend insight into prevention and treatment efforts and reduce their smoking-related morbidity and mortality. This study sought to understand how risk perception and interest in quitting smoking relate to LCS interest among homeless adults. Participants comprised a convenience sample of CO-verified current smokers (N = 310; 72.6% men, M_age = 43 + 11.7) from a homeless shelter in Dallas, TX. Participants self-reported risk perception, interest in quitting smoking, and interest in LCS. The average risk perception was 6.7 + 3.2 (range 0-10), 74.8% (n = 232) agreed or strongly agreed with interest in LCS, and 65.8% (n = 204) were interested in quitting smoking. Greater interest in quitting smoking, but not greater risk perception, was associated with greater interest in LCS (adjusted OR: 1.968, (95% CI: 1.213, 3.191), p = 0.006). Risk perception and interest in quitting smoking did not interact in their association with interest in LCS. Results suggest that homeless smokers with an interest in quitting may be receptive to LCS: a diagnostic tool by which cancers can be caught at earlier stages and prior to metastasis. However, few in the current sample would be eligible for LCS based on current guidelines; results have implications for altered screening practices among chronic smokers experiencing homelessness.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study

Introduction

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals' specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described.

Methods

In this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method.

Results

Fatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the 'right' to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it.

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis

OBJECTIVE

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual's perspective.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables.

RESULTS

Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

Idiotypic and anti-idiotypic antibodies against polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in human blood serum are new biomarkers of lung cancer

Evaluation of epidemiologic risk factor in relation to lung cancer invoked by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons has been inconsistent. To address this issue, we conducted a prospective evaluation of new biomarkers for lung cancer classified according levels of idiotypic and anti-idiotypic antibodies against polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in human blood serum. The blood serums of 557 lung cancer patients and 227 healthy donors were analysis of these antibodies by ELISA. Collected data were regrouped and analyzed by gender, smoking, and age as predictors of risk lung cancer factors. Also, the data of lung cancer patients were additionally analyzed by stages and types of lung cancer, surgery, and chemotherapy. It was suggested to use ratio of idiotypic and anti-idiotypic antibodies rather than distinguish level each of them separately. The ratio of levels in healthy people was 3.32 times higher than in lung cancer patients. This approach gave more precisely results and great prognostic value. The logistic regression model (AUC = 0.9) and neural networks (AUC = 0.95) were built to compare lung cancer patients and healthy donors by predictors. The ELISA data of 49 people random sampled from the originally ELISA data and ELISA data of 52 coal miners as a group of lung cancer risk were confirmed logistic regression model. So, suggested idiotypic and anti-idiotypic antibodies against polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were not only shown difference between healthy donors and lung cancer patients also elicited group of lung cancer risk among healthy people.

Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme

OBJECTIVES

This Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme is a response to high rates of lung cancer and respiratory diseases locally and aims to diagnose lung cancer at an earlier stage by proactive approach to those at high risk of lung cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the programme in terms of its likely effect on mortality from lung cancer and its delivery to deprived populations.

METHODS

Persons aged 58-75 years, with a history of smoking or a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)² according to general practice records were invited for lung health check in a community health hub setting. A detailed risk assessment and spirometry were performed in eligible patients. Those with a 5% or greater five-year risk of lung cancer were referred for a low dose CT³ scan.

RESULTS

A total of 4 566 subjects attended the appointment for risk assessment and 3 591 (79%) consented to data sharing. More than 80% of the patients were in the most deprived quintile of the index of multiple deprivation. Of those attending, 63% underwent spirometry and 43% were recommended for a CT scan. A total of 25 cancers were diagnosed, of which 16 (64%) were stage I. Comparison with the national stage distribution implied that the programme was reducing lung cancer mortality by 22%.

CONCLUSIONS

Community based proactive approaches to early diagnosis of lung cancer in health deprived regions are likely to be effective in early detection of lung cancer.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in a population sample

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Routine UK lung cancer screening is not yet available, thus understanding barriers to participation in lung screening could help maximize effectiveness if introduced.

Methods

Population‐based survey of 1007 adults aged 16 and over in Wales using random quota sampling. Computer‐assisted face‐to‐face interviews included demographic variables (age, gender, smoking, social group), four lung cancer belief statements and three lung screening attitudinal items. Determinants of lung screening attitudes were examined using multivariable regression adjusted for age, gender, social group and previous exposure to lung campaign messages.

Results

Avoidance of lung screening due to fear of what might be found was statistically significantly associated with negative lung cancer beliefs including fatalism (aOR = 8.8, 95% CI = 5.6‐13.9, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptomatic presentation (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5‐3.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.3, CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.01).

Low perceived effectiveness of lung screening was significantly associated with fatalism (aOR = 6.4, 95% CI = 3.5‐11.7, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptom presentation (aOR = 4.9, 95% CI = 2.7‐8.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.1‐0.3, P ≤ 0.001). In contrast, respondents who thought lung screening could reduce cancer deaths had positive beliefs about lung cancer (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.001) and its treatment (aOR = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.0‐12.6, P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion

People with negative beliefs about lung cancer may be more likely to avoid lung screening. Alongside the introduction of effective early detection strategies, interventions are needed to modify public perceptions of lung cancer, particularly for fatalism.