Next steps and barriers to implementing lung cancer screening with low-dose CT

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Acceptability of Implementing a Lung Cancer Screening Program in Belgium

Lung cancer is the most common and deadliest cancer in the world, and its incidence is expected to grow. Nonetheless, this growth can be contained through smoking cessation programs and effective lung cancer screening programs. In 2018, Belgium had the seventh highest incidence of lung cancer in the world, with lung cancer incidence accounting for 11.8% of all cancers diagnosed and 23.8% of all cancer-related deaths that same year. The aims of this study were to determine the overall acceptability of a lung cancer screening program in the Flemish population and to determine the main factors that would influence the overall acceptability of such a program. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed in the Flemish population and distributed online and on paper. The results are presented with the variables of interest and the main outcome, i.e., the acceptability of participating in such a program if implemented. Odds ratios were used to compare acceptability between subgroups. A multivariate regression model was used to determine the key factors that would have the largest impact on the level of acceptability and, thus, on the possible efficiency of such a program. This study estimated that acceptability of participating in a lung cancer screening program was 92%. Irrespective of the smoking status, levels of acceptability were higher than 89%. The key factors which could significantly influence the acceptability of a lung cancer screening program were individuals with low education, low protective factor knowledge and total knowledge, and lung cancer screening reimbursement, which were significantly associated with acceptability (0.01, 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05 respectively). Low protective factor knowledge decreased the log odds of acceptability 3.08-fold. In conclusion, the acceptability of implementing a lung cancer screening program in Flanders seems to be extremely high and would be well received by all. When implementing such a program, policymakers should aim for it to be reimbursed, campaigns should be gender-specific, focused on those with lower educational and socioeconomic status, and there should be investment in increasing total knowledge about lung cancer and knowledge about protective factors.

An International Consensus on Actions to Improve Lung Cancer Survival: A Modified Delphi Method Among Clinical Experts in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership

BACKGROUND

Research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) demonstrates that international variation in lung cancer survival persists, particularly within early stage disease. There is a lack of international consensus on the critical contributing components to variation in lung cancer outcomes and the steps needed to optimise lung cancer services. These are needed to improve the quality of options for and equitable access to treatment, and ultimately improve survival.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 key informants from ICBP countries. An international clinical network representing 6 ICBP countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales) was established to share local clinical insights and examples of best practice. Using a modified Delphi consensus model, network members suggested and rated recommendations to optimise the management of lung cancer. Calls to Action were developed via Delphi voting as the most crucial recommendations, with Good Practice Points included to support their implementation.

RESULTS

Five Calls to Action and thirteen Good Practice Points applicable to high income, comparable countries were developed and achieved 100% consensus. Calls to Action include (1) Implement cost-effective, clinically efficacious, and equitable lung cancer screening initiatives; (2) Ensure diagnosis of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; (3) Develop Thoracic Centres of Excellence; (4) Undertake an international audit of lung cancer care; and (5) Recognise improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes as a priority in cancer policy.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations presented are the voice of an expert international lung cancer clinical network, and signpost key considerations for policymakers in countries within the ICBP but also in other comparable high-income countries. These define a roadmap to help align and focus efforts in improving outcomes and management of lung cancer patients globally.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication

BACKGROUND

While discussion continues over the future implementation of lung cancer screening, low participation from higher risk groups could limit the effectiveness of any national screening programme.

OBJECTIVES

To compare smokers' beliefs about lung cancer screening with those of former and never smokers within a low socioeconomic status (SES) sample, to explore the views of lower SES smokers and ex-smokers in-depth, and to provide insights into effective engagement strategies.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using proactive, community-based recruitment methods, we surveyed 175 individuals from socioeconomically deprived communities with high smoking prevalence and subsequently interviewed 21 smokers and ex-smokers. Participants were approached in community settings or responded to a mail-out from their housing association.

RESULTS

Interviewees were supportive of screening in principle, but many were doubtful about its ability to deliver long-term survival benefit for their generation of "heavy smokers." Lung cancer was perceived as an uncontrollable disease, and the survey data showed that fatalism, worry and perceived risk of lung cancer were particularly high among smokers compared with non-smokers. Perceived blame and stigma around lung cancer as a self-inflicted smokers' disease were implicated by interviewees as important social deterrents of screening participation. The belief that lungs are not a treatable organ appeared to be a common lay explanation for poor survival and undermined the potential value of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes towards screening among this high-risk group are complex. Invitation strategies need to be carefully devised to achieve equitable participation in screening.

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and 'hard-to-reach' patients

BACKGROUND

Participation in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening offered in the trial context has been poor, especially among smokers from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds; a group for whom the risk-benefit ratio is improved due to their high risk of lung cancer. Attracting high risk participants is essential to the success and equity of any future screening programme. This study will investigate whether the observed low and biased uptake of screening can be improved using a targeted invitation strategy.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial design will be used to test whether targeted invitation materials are effective at improving engagement with an offer of lung cancer screening for high risk candidates. Two thousand patients aged 60-75 and recorded as a smoker within the last five years by their GP, will be identified from primary care records and individually randomised to receive either intervention invitation materials (which take a targeted, stepped and low burden approach to information provision prior to the appointment) or control invitation materials. The primary outcome is uptake of a nurse-led 'lung health check' hospital appointment, during which patients will be offered a spirometry test, an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading, and an LDCT if eligible. Initial data on demographics (i.e. age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation score) and smoking status will be collected in primary care and analysed to explore differences between attenders and non-attenders with respect to invitation group. Those who attend the lung health check will have further data on smoking collected during their appointment (including pack-year history, nicotine dependence and confidence to quit). Secondary outcomes will include willingness to be screened, uptake of LDCT and measures of informed decision-making to ensure the latter is not compromised by either invitation strategy.

DISCUSSION

If effective at improving informed uptake of screening and reducing bias in participation, this invitation strategy could be adopted by local screening pilots or a national programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the ISRCTN (International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number: ISRCTN21774741) on the 23rd September 2015 and the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT0255810) on the 22nd September 2015.