Community-based Lung Cancer Screening Program Research Articles

Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

727 The UK Targeted Lung Cancer Screening Pilot Programme: The Southampton Experience

Abstract Aim Performance of the community-based targeted lung cancer screening pilot. Method 22,829 people between the age of 55 and 75 with a smoking history were invited to attend a one stop assessment inolving a questionnaire-based interview with a nurse, cardio-respiratory observations, and then spirometry. The patient’s risk of developing lung cancer was quantified using the Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) or PLCOm2012. Participants were offered low dose CT-scan (LDCT) if the calculated risk was greater or equal to 2.5% or 1.51% respectively. Pulmonary nodules found was followed up in a protocolised fashion. Results As of June 2022, 7754 patients had attended. Of these 4562 (59%) were invited for a follow-up scan and 820 (11%) of the follow-up patients required a second follow-up scan. 1,163 (25%) of the attendees have been referred onward as 2-week lung cancer or other specialities such respiratory and vascular. 117 (1.5%) of screened patients were diagnosed with lung cancer and staged histogically. 83 (73%) of confirmed lung cancer were in stage 1, while 10, 15, and 7 people in stages 2, 3 and 4 respectivey. Conclusions Targeted community-based lung cancer screening programme can detect curable early-stage lung cancer at risk groups.

Invitation strategies and participation in a community-based lung cancer screening programme located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation

IntroductionAlthough lung cancer screening is being implemented in the UK, there is uncertainty about the optimal invitation strategy. Here, we report participation in a community screening programme following a population-based...

Validation of lung cancer polygenic risk scores in a high-risk case-control cohort

PurposeScreening with low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer (LC) mortality. Risk prediction models used for screening selection do not include genetic variables. Here, we investigated the performance of previously published polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for LC, considering their potential to improve screening selection. MethodsWe validated 9 PRSs in a high-risk case-control cohort, comprising genotype data from 652 surgical patients with LC and 550 cancer-free, high-risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥ 1.51%) participants of the Manchester Lung Health Check, a community-based LC screening program (n = 550). Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]) between cases and controls was assessed for each PRS independently and alongside clinical risk factors. ResultsMedian age was 67 years, 53% were female, 46% were current smokers, and 76% were National Lung Screening Trial eligible. Median PLCOM2012 score among controls was 3.4%, 80% of cases were early stage. All PRSs significantly improved discrimination, AUC increased between +0.002 (P = .02) and +0.015 (P < .0001), compared with clinical risk factors alone. The best-performing PRS had an independent AUC of 0.59. Two novel loci, in the DAPK1 and MAGI2 genes, were significantly associated with LC risk. ConclusionPRSs may improve LC risk prediction and screening selection. Further research, particularly examining clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, is required.

Invasive Procedures Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice

The harm associated with imaging abnormalities related to lung cancer screening (LCS) is not well documented, especially outside the clinical trial and academic setting. What is the frequency of invasive procedures and complications associated with a community based LCS program, including procedures for false-positive and benign, but clinically important, incidental findings? We performed a single-center retrospective study of an LCS program at a nonuniversity teaching hospital from 2016 through 2019 to identify invasive procedures prompted by LCS results, including their indication and complications. Among 2,003 LCS participants, 58 patients (2.9%) received a diagnosis of lung cancer and 71 patients (3.5%) received a diagnosis of any malignancy. Invasive procedures were performed 160 times in 103 participants (5.1%), including 1.7%of those without malignancy. Eight invasive procedures (0.4%of participants), including four surgeries (12%of diagnostic lung resections), were performed for false-positive lung nodules. Only 1%of Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4A nodules that proved benign were subject to an invasive procedure. Among those without malignancy, an invasive procedure was performed in eight participants for extrapulmonary false-positive findings (0.4%) and in 19 participants (0.9%) to evaluate incidental findings considered benign but clinically important. Procedures for the latter indication resulted in treatment, change in management, or diagnosis in 79%of individuals. Invasive procedures in those without malignancy resulted in three complications (0.15%). Seventy nonsurgical procedures (6%complication rate) and 48 thoracic surgeries (4%major complication rate) were performed in those with malignancy. The use of invasive procedures to resolve false-positive findings was uncommon in the clinical practice of a nonuniversity LCS program that adhered to a nodule management algorithm and used a multidisciplinary approach. Incidental findings considered benign but clinically important resulted in invasive procedure rates that were similar to those for false-positive findings and frequently had clinical value.

Risk perception and disease knowledge in attendees of a community-based lung cancer screening programme

ObjectivesIn England, a risk-based approach is used to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening. Ensuring effective communication and counselling of risk is therefore increasingly important. In this study, we explore the perception of lung cancer risk in attendees of a community-based screening service, located in socio-economically deprived areas of Manchester. We analyse responses based on demographic variables, calculated risk score and screening eligibility. Materials and MethodsThe Manchester Lung Health Check (LHC) programme invited ever smokers, age 55–80, to a lung cancer risk assessment in which their 6-year risk was calculated (using the PLCOM2012 model). Those at high risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥ 1.51%) were eligible for low dose CT (LDCT) screening. Prior to their assessment, attendees were invited to complete the study questionnaire, which assessed absolute and comparative risk perception, disease knowledge (incidence, survival, and risk factors), lung cancer specific worry, and mental health. Results371 participants completed the questionnaire; 66% (n = 243) had linked clinical data. Perceived absolute risk was markedly higher than calculated risk (median: 20% vs. 1%; p < 0.001) and higher in women than men (25% vs. 15%; p = 0.001). There was no correlation between perceived absolute and calculated risk. Overall, 30% classified themselves at higher, and 21% at lower, lung cancer risk compared to others their age. Median PLCOM2012 score increased with perceived comparative risk (p = 0.004). Those eligible for screening were more likely to: classify themselves at higher comparative risk (41% vs. 21%; p < 0.0001), report lung cancer-specific worry (27% vs. 10%; p = 0.001) and have indications of depression (20% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Family history of lung cancer was significantly associated with higher comparative risk (adjOR 4.03, 95%CI 1.74–9.3; p = 0.001). ConclusionEmploying comparative rather than absolute risk may assist risk counselling. Further research is required to determine the optimal approach to risk communication in this setting.

Implementation and Uptake of Rural Lung Cancer Screening.

Given the higher rates of tobacco use along with increased mortality specific to lung cancer in rural settings, low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening could be particularly beneficial to such populations. However, limited radiology facilities and increased geographical distance, combined with lower income and education along with reduced patient engagement, present heightened barriers to screening initiation and adherence. In collaboration with community leaders and stakeholders, we developed and implemented a community-based lung cancer screening program, including telephone-based navigation and tobacco cessation counseling support, serving 18 North Texas counties. Funding was available to support clinical services costs where needed. We collected data on LDCT referrals, orders, and completion. To raise awareness for lung cancer screening, we leveraged our established collaborative network of more than 700 community partners. In the first year of operation, 107 medical providers referred 570 patients for lung cancer screening, of whom 488 (86%) were eligible for LDCT. The most common reasons for ineligibility were age (43%) and insufficient tobacco history (20%). Of 381 ordered LDCTs, 334 (88%) were completed. Among screened patients, 61% were current smokers and 36% had insurance coverage for the procedure. The program cost per patient was $430. Implementation, uptake, and completion of LDCT-based lung cancer screening is feasible in rural settings. Community outreach, health promotion, and algorithm-based navigation may support such efforts. Given low lung cancer screening rates nationally and heightened lung cancer risk in rural populations, similar programs in other regions may be particularly impactful.

Spirometry performed as part of the Manchester community-based lung cancer screening programme detects a high prevalence of airflow obstruction in individuals without a prior diagnosis of COPD

BackgroundCOPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. We investigated the role of spirometry in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.MethodsEver smokers,...

Analysis of lung cancer risk model (PLCOM2012 and LLPv2) performance in a community-based lung cancer screening programme

IntroductionLow-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the...

Attending community-based lung cancer screening influences smoking behaviour in deprived populations

ObjectivesThe impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations. Material and MethodsEver-smokers, age 55–74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCOm2012), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCOM2012≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed. Results919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms (adjOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07–6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke. ConclusionsOur data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a ‘licence to smoke’ in those screened.

Performance of community-based lung cancer screening program in a Histoplasma endemic region

ObjectivesLung cancer screening with low dose computed-tomography (LDCT) is currently recommended for high-risk populations based on mortality benefit shown in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). This study evaluated performance of a community-based lung cancer screening program in a Histoplasma endemic region. Materials and MethodsDemographic and clinical information was collected through retrospective review of patients in the Lung Cancer Screening program of a Kentucky (Histoplasma endemic region) health system from 2016 and 2017. A positive LDCT screen is defined as Lung-RADS version 1.0 assessment categories 3 or 4. Patients characteristics, initial screening results and follow up were analyzed and compared to NLST results. ResultsA total of 4500 LDCT screens were performed in 2016 (39%) and 2017 (61%) with 43% adherence rate to repeat annual screen in 2017. Mean age of patients was 64 years, with majority being females (54%) and current smokers (69%) with average 52-pack year smoking history. The rate of positive LDCT was 13.3% (600) varying based on baseline (14.6%) and annual (9.5%) screen. A total of 70 lung cancers were diagnosed among all positive LDCT screens (11.7%) with a false positive rate of 12%. ConclusionsBaseline positive screens in our study are similar to NLST data with Lung-RADS criteria implementation (14.6% vs 13.6%, p = 0.15) despite being a Histoplasma endemic region. Our study shows a successful performance of a community-based lung cancer screening program in a Histoplasma endemic region.

Community-based lung cancer screening program: A five-year comprehensive review.

e13080 Background: Low-dose chest CT for lung cancer screening has been shown to have a significant impact on the early diagnosis of lung cancer. Initial trials have shown an approximate 20% decrease in overall lung cancer mortality (NLST, 2011). This study incorporates all patients who were evaluated by the Center for Thoracic Disease in a community-based lung cancer screening program from 2013 to 2018. Over the course of the study, thoracic surgeons have evaluated these patients with subsequent interval-based scans to monitor the progression of suspicious nodules. Methods: Eligibility criteria for the program included patients within the age range of 55-80, with a &gt; 30 pack year smoking history, and that were current smokers or quit tobacco less than 15 years ago. Individuals between 50-55 years old were also included if they had &gt; 20 pack year smoking history and at least one additional lung cancer risk factor. All patients included in this analysis completed an initial lung cancer screening consultation and recommended follow-up evaluations with thoracic surgeons from March 2013 to December 2018. All patients with suggestive abnormalities were discussed at a multidisciplinary conference prior to embarking on any invasive procedures. Patient data was collected on REDCap. Descriptive statistics for all continuous (mean ± SD) and categorical [N (%)] variables were calculated on patients. Results: 470 patients were included in the final analysis. The majority of the patients were males (56.4%), mean age was 64 years old (range: 50-81), and 55.3% were current smokers. The average smoking history was 42.3 pack years. 223 (47.6%) patients had a family history of cancer and 70 (14.5%) patients had a personal history of cancer. 25 patients (5.3%) had a diagnosis of primary lung cancer, among whom, 16 patients (64%) had early stage lung cancer (stage 1 and stage 2), 5 patients (20%) had stage 3, and 4 patients (16%) had stage 4 lung cancer. The cancer distribution included 17 adenocarcinomas (68%), 3 squamous cell carcinomas (12%), 3 small cell cancers (12%), 1 large cell cancer (4%) and 1 carcinoid tumor (4%). Conclusions: This study has demonstrated the value of enrolling patients in a community-based lung cancer screening program. Our results have reiterated the prevalence of discovering early staged lung cancer in high risk patients. This comprehensive five-year review indicates the importance of physician coordinated follow-up and evaluation in lung cancer screening patients.

Performance of community-based lung cancer screening program in a region with a high rate of endemic histoplasmosis.

58 Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with Low dose computed-tomography (LDCT) has been recommended by USPSTF for high-risk population since 2013 largely based on 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality shown in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The success of NLST was related to its high adherence rate and thorough ascertainment of lung cancers and deaths. This study evaluated performance of lung cancer screening program in Histoplasmosis endemic community. Methods: Demographic and clinical information was collected through retrospective review on all patients in the lung cancer screening program of a Kentucky health system comprising 21 centers from 2016 and 2017. A positive LDCT screen is defined as Lung-RADS version 1.0 assessment categories 3 or 4. Results: A total of 4500 LDCT screens were performed in 2016 (39%) and 2017 (61%) with 49% adherence rate to repeat annual screen in 2017. Mean age of patients was 64 years, majority being females (54%) and current smokers (69%) with average 52-pack year smoking history. The rate of positive LDCT was 13.3% (600) varying based on initial (14.6%) vs annual (9.5%) screen. A total of 70 lung cancers were diagnosed among all positive LDCT screens (11.7%) with a false positive rate of 12%. Conclusions: Comparing to NLST results updated with Lung-RADS categories, baseline positive screens in our community are similar (14.6% vs 13.6%, p = 0.15) despite being a Histoplasmosis endemic region. Our higher rate of annual positive screens (9.5% vs 6%, p &lt; 0.001) and false positive rate (12% vs 8%, p &lt; 0.001) may be explained by poor adherence to annual screens and an inability to thoroughly ascertain lung cancer diagnosis in all patients due to lost to follow up. In community setting with &lt; 50% adherence to annual screens compared to 95% adherence in NLST, it is unclear if LCS mortality benefit still holds and needs intervention to increase adherence to LCS.

P2.11-03 Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in a Community-Based Lung Cancer Screening Programme

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 community-based lung cancer screening programme, was effective in identifying individuals at high risk who might benefit from primary prevention. 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 PLCOM2012 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. 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 (PLCOM2012) 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. Opportunistic CVD risk assessment within a lung cancer screening programme is feasible and is likely to identify a very large number of individuals suitable for primary prevention.

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

BackgroundCardiovascular 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. MethodsThe 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 PLCOM2012 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. ResultsSeventy-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 (PLCOM2012) 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. DiscussionOpportunistic 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.

Surveillance of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in high-risk individuals by using regional lung cancer mass screening.

Background and objectivePatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at risk for lung cancer; the diseases have common etiologies, including cigarette smoking. We aimed to clarify the effectiveness of COPD detection using a regional mass-screening program for lung cancer.Materials and methodsA total of 7,067 residents of Togane, Chiba, Japan received lung cancer screening between May and July, 2011. We defined four groups of possible COPD candidates: group A (n=358), positive smoking history, positive chronic respiratory symptoms; group B (n=766), positive smoking history, positive lifestyle-related disease; group C (n=75), passive smoking history, positive chronic respiratory symptoms; and group D (n=301), passive smoking history, positive lifestyle-related disease. Candidates underwent on-site pulmonary function testing (PFT).ResultsThe criteria for COPD candidates were fulfilled in 1,686 of 7,067 individuals (23.9%); 1,500 participants underwent PFT (89%), and 171 (11.4%) were diagnosed with COPD. The overall COPD detection rate was 2.4%. The frequency of COPD was significantly higher in groups A and B than in groups C and D (P=0.048); however, the distribution of COPD grades was similar among the groups (P=0.372). Multiple logistic regression analysis identified male sex, age 60 years or greater, and positive smoking history as risk factors for COPD.ConclusionCOPD screening using a community-based lung cancer-screening program may be effective for disease detection. Individuals who are 60 years of age or older with a positive smoking history should undergo PFT to detect COPD.

Detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in community‐based annual lung cancer screening: Chiba Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Lung Cancer Screening Study Group

Detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is crucial in the management of COPD. The aim of this study was to establish the utility of a community-based lung cancer screening for detecting COPD. In Japan, community-based lung cancer screening for residents who are 40 years or older using chest radiography is well established. A screening system in Chiba City, Japan, was used to detect COPD. The criteria to consider COPD at screening included age of 60 years or older, a smoking history and chronic respiratory symptoms. Participants fulfilling these criteria were referred for diagnostic evaluation consisting of pulmonary function testing (PFT) and chest computed tomography (CT). Of 89,100 Chiba City residents who underwent lung cancer screening, 72,653 residents were 60 years or older. Among them, 878 (1.0%) were identified with suspected COPD and referred for further evaluation. Of those identified, a total of 567 residents (64.6%, 567/878) underwent further evaluations, and 161 (28.4%) were reported to have COPD, with 38.5% of them requiring COPD treatment. To verify the diagnoses from the secondary evaluation centres, PFT and CT data were collected from 228 study participants, and 24.9% were diagnosed with COPD. CT findings classified according to the Goddard classification revealed that 20.1% of these participants had moderate to severe emphysema. COPD screening added to a community-based lung cancer screening programme may be effective in the detection of patients with COPD.

Five-Year Outcome of Lung Cancer Detection in Patients With and Without Airflow Obstruction in a Primary Care Outpatient Practice

We have previously published the outcome of a community-based lung cancer screening program. We now report on the 5-year follow-up of this study and include both patients with and without airflow obstruction. One thousand two hundred fifty-six patients completed questionnaires in the office of their primary care physicians, and 430 of this group were assessed to be at high risk for lung cancer. These patients then underwent spirometry, and 88 of 126 patients with airflow obstruction consented to lung cancer screening test. TESTING METHODS: Complete screening testing included spirometry, two-view chest radiograph, chest CT scan, and sputum cytology examinations. Eight lung cancers were found in the high-risk group with airflow obstruction. No more cancers were found in the tested group in the 5 years since the earlier report. Ten cancers were found in the 304 patients with normal airflow, not previously reported. In all, 18 lung cancers were found in 430 patients deemed at risk by a simple one-page questionnaire (4.2%). A questionnaire, self-administered in a primary care office setting, helps identify patients at high risk of lung cancer. If upcoming results of randomized controlled trials show a benefit of lung screening, this tool could be of help to select patients for screening.