Early Diagnosis and Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the most significant cause of cancer death, accounting for about 20% of all cancer-related mortality. A significant reason for this is delayed diagnosis, either due to lack of symptoms in early-stage disease or presentation with non-specific symptoms common with a broad range of alternative diagnoses. More is needed in terms of increasing public awareness, providing adequate healthcare professional education and implementing clinical pathways that improve the earlier diagnosis of symptomatic lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography screening of high-risk, asymptomatic populations has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, with focus now shifting towards how best to implement lung cancer screening on a wider scale in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner. For maximum benefit, efforts must be made to optimise uptake, especially among high-risk populations with significant socioeconomic deprivation, as well as successfully incorporate tobacco-dependency treatment. Quality assured programme management will be critical to minimising screening-related harms and adequately managing incidental findings. By undertaking the above, there can be optimism that lung cancer outcomes can be improved significantly in the near future.

Targeted lung cancer screening selects individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. The aim of this study was to determine whether a brief CV risk assessment, delivered as part of a targeted community-based lung cancer screening programme, was effective in identifying individuals at high risk who might benefit from primary prevention.

METHODS

The Manchester Lung Screening Pilot consisted of annual low dose CT (LDCT) over 2 screening rounds, targeted at individuals in deprived areas at high risk of lung cancer (age 55-74 and 6-year risk ≥1.51%, using PLCO_M2012 risk model). All participants of the second screening round were eligible to take part in the study. Ten-year CV risk was estimated using QRISK2 in participants without CVD and compared to age (±5 years) and sex matched Health Survey for England (HSE) controls; high risk was defined as QRISK2 score ≥10%. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) was assessed on LDCT scans and compared to QRISK2 score.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven percent (n=920/1,194) of screening attendees were included in the analysis; mean age 65.6 ± 5.4 and 50.4% female. QRISK2 and lung cancer risk (PLCO_M2012) scores were correlated (r = 0.26, p < 0.001). Median QRISK2 score was 21.1% (IQR 14.9-29.6) in those without established CVD (77.6%, n = 714/920), double that of HSE controls (10.3%, IQR 6.6-16.2; n = 714) (p < 0.001). QRISK2 score was significantly higher in those with CAC (p < 0.001). Screening attendees were 10-fold more likely to be classified high risk (OR 10.2 [95% CI 7.3-14.0]). One third (33.7%, n = 310/920) of all study participants were high risk but not receiving statin therapy for primary CVD prevention.

DISCUSSION

Opportunistic CVD risk assessment within a targeted lung cancer screening programme is feasible and is likely to identify a very large number of individuals suitable for primary prevention.