Community-based Lung Cancer Research Articles

Abstract A158: Community-based lung cancer screening navigation for populations at high risk

Abstract Rationale: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce mortality in individuals with a high-risk smoking history, but uptake has been uneven and suboptimal. In our catchment area of Washington state, urban American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) and sexual and gender minorities (SGM) have high rates of commercial tobacco use and lower uptake of LCS. Mixed-methods community-engaged formative research with both populations revealed barriers to LCS related to social determinants of health, and interest in identity-tailored approaches to LCS care. We used this to develop tailored navigation approaches to LCS. Our study objective was to pilot and evaluate patient navigation programs to facilitate LCS uptake and care completion for these community members. Methods: We conducted parallel LCS navigation pilot studies, with participants who self-identified as AI/AN or as a member of SGM communities and who were LCS screen eligible. Participants were recruited through referrals to our multi-site university-based LCS program, community-based organization partnerships, outreach, and social media. Dedicated patient navigators were trained on LCS processes, navigation, and community-specific best practices. Navigation was guided by handbooks with barrier-specific resources, standardized scripting for contact points, and community-based resources specific to the populations. Participants completed pre- and post-navigation (1-3 months after enrollment) surveys and were followed for LCS uptake, outcomes, and navigation activities through chart review. Results: Between July 1, 2023 and February 1, 2024, 40 participants were enrolled in the navigation pilot studies, 21 in the AI/AN arm and 19 in the SGM arm. The median age of participants was 65 (interquartile range (IQR): 59-69), 80% reported current smoking, and 65% reported a household income below $30,000. Most (55%) reported at least one barrier that delayed access to healthcare in the past year. After enrollment, 35% completed LCS within one month and 55% completed LCS to date. Participants who completed post-surveys (n=22, 55%) indicated that the patient navigator was helpful. Common navigation activities included scheduling assistance, understanding screening results, addressing financial issues, and smoking cessation. Overall, participants approved of navigation approaches with a median Acceptability of Intervention Measure score of 5/5 (IQR: 4.8-5) and a median Patient Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relationship with Navigator score of 44.5/45 (IQR: 39.3-45). Conclusion: These single-arm pilot trials suggest tailored navigation for LCS for AI/AN and SGM communities is a useful approach to engage patients and address barriers and appears acceptable and welcomed. However, substantial variation in LCS completion may reflect complex barriers not addressed through navigation. Community-based and tailored navigation offers a promising approach to address LCS disparities, though further bi-directional refinement of patient navigation is necessary to optimize engagement and LCS completion. Citation Format: Ursula Tsosie, Katie DeCell, Nicolas Anderson, Madison Snidarich, Brandon Omernik, Nicholas Murphy, Matthew Triplette. Community-based lung cancer screening navigation for populations at high risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr A158.

Abstract 7489: Peripheral blood liquid biopsy for the screening of lung cancer

Abstract Lung cancer is the second most common type of cancer in both men and women and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Unfortunately, most patients have advanced stages (stage III or IV) at the time of diagnosis and the only U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-recommended screening test, Low Dose CT scan (LDCT), has a high false-positive rate. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the early detection of lung cancer with better discrimination between individuals with lung cancer and those without. In this study, we demonstrate the capability of a non-enrichment-based liquid biopsy workflow, the High Definition Single Cell Assay (HDSCA) to be used as a complementary tool to the current screening methodology. The HDSCA workflow can detect circulating cells of epithelial, mesenchymal, endothelial, and hematological origin, as well as acellular events such as oncosomes. This allows the investigation of the broad spectrum of circulating rare events for the potential identification of biomarkers associated with lung cancer. We investigated 52 peripheral blood samples collected from the second annual screening round of Manchester’s 'Lung Health Check' pilot of a community-based lung cancer screening cohort. Of these, 7 were subsequently diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer, 2 with small cell lung cancer, and 43 were deemed at high risk of developing lung cancer. We additionally investigated 60 peripheral blood samples from individuals with no known pathology to use as controls. Within the screening cohort, a number of single rare analytes were found to have statistically significant differences between the lung cancer, high-risk cohort, and normal blood donor samples, which can potentially be biomarkers used to differentiate the cohorts. We also built a multi-analyte patient-level classification model utilizing the rare cellular and acellular events that stratified lung cancer patients from the normal donor individuals and high-risk cohort with high accuracy. Our results demonstrate the potential of liquid biopsy as a complementary screening approach for lung cancer. Citation Format: Jiyoun Seo, Stephanie N. Shishido, Jeremy Mason, Carmen Ruiz Velasco, Andrew Chen, Dominic Rothwell, Phil Crosbie, James Hicks, Caroline Dive, Peter Kuhn. Peripheral blood liquid biopsy for the screening of lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 7489.

Analysis of screening outcomes and factors influencing compliance among community-based lung cancer high-risk population in Nanchang, China, 2018-2020.

To investigate the screening results and compliance of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening among the high-risk lung cancer populations in Jiangxi Province from 2018 to 2020, and to explore the related influencing factors of compliance. From November 2018 to October 2020, permanent residents in Nanchang City were selected and their demographic data and lung cancer risk factor data were collected to screen high-risk groups, and LDCT screening was performed on high-risk groups with diagnostic reports by 2 chief physicians. Descriptive analysis method was used to analyze the basic information of screening, screening results and screening compliance. χ2 and logistic regression test were used to conduct single and multi-factor analysis of screening compliance. A total of 26,588 people participated in this screening, of which 34.4% (n=9,139) were at high risk of lung cancer, 3,773 participants were completed LDCT screening, and the screening compliance rate was 41.3%. Screening results showed that 389 participants were positive for suspected pulmonary tumor or lung nodules, the screening positive rate of 10.3%. The logistic multivariable results of screening compliance showed that the compliance was better in males, those who quit smoking, those with chronic respiratory diseases and family history of cancer, and those who have primary education, those with a history of occupational harmful exposure had a poor compliance. Compliance with lung cancer screening in Jiangxi Province, China still needs to be improved, and gender, education level, harmful occupational exposure, smoking, chronic respiratory diseases, and family history of tumors cancer play an important role on screening compliance.

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...

154 - The impact of reminder invitations on participation in community-based lung cancer screening

154 - The impact of reminder invitations on participation in community-based lung cancer screening

Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening. Individuals aged 55-80 years, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included general practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner. Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders, respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.42-0.46) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54-0.62 for the most versus the least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98). In total, 6650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees. Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socioeconomic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening.

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.

Organizational Characteristics and Smoking Cessation Support in Community-Based Lung Cancer Screening Programs.

After the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with chest CT can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% [1], CMS released beneficiary screening eligibility as age 55 to 77 years, asymptomatic for lung cancer, smoking history of at least 30 pack-years, and current smoker or a quit time of less than 15 years for former smokers. In addition, screening was to be performed in conjunction with a LCS shared decision making (SDM) visit (to include counseling on the importance of smoking cessation or continued abstinence from smoking for former smokers) and imaging facilities performing LCS were to offer smoking cessation interventions [2].

BPI22-010: Applying FRAME to Code Modifications to a Community-Based Educational Intervention and Lung Cancer Screening Protocols Amidst the Covid-19 Pandemic

"BPI22-010: Applying FRAME to Code Modifications to a Community-Based Educational Intervention and Lung Cancer Screening Protocols Amidst the Covid-19 Pandemic" published on 31 Mar 2022 by National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

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.

Community-based lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography in China: First round results and a meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficiency of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer in China by analyzing the baseline results of a community-based screening study accompanied with a meta-analysis. MethodsA first round of community-based lung cancer screening with LDCT was conducted in Tianjin, China, and a systematic literature search was performed to identify LDCT screening and registry-based clinical studies for lung cancer in China. Baseline results in the community-based screening study were described by participant risk level and the lung cancer detection rate was compared with the pooled rate among the screening studies. The percentage of patients per stage was compared between the community-based study and screening and clinical studies. ResultsIn the community-based study, 5523 participants (43.6% men) underwent LDCT. The lung cancer detection rate was 0.5% (high-risk, 1.2%; low-risk, 0.4%), with stage I disease present in 70.0% (high-risk, 50.0%; low-risk, 83.3%), and the adenocarcinoma present in 84.4% (high-risk, 61.5%; low-risk, 100%). Among all screen-detected lung cancer, women accounted for 8.3% and 66.7% in the high- and low-risk group, respectively. In the screening studies from mainland China, the lung cancer detection rate 0.6% (95 %CI: 0.3%–0.9%) for high-risk populations. The proportions with carcinoma in situ and stage I disease in the screening and clinical studies were 76.4% (95 %CI: 66.3%–85.3%) and 15.2% (95 %CI: 11.8%–18.9%), respectively. ConclusionsThe stage shift of lung cancer due to screening suggests a potential effectiveness of LDCT screening in China. Nearly 70% of screen-detected lung cancers in low-risk populations are identified in women.

Establishing scanning protocols for a CT lung cancer screening trial in the UK.

To develop a CT scanning protocol for lung cancer screening which achieved low radiation dose and a high level of objectively assessed image quality. An anthropomorphic chest phantom and a commercially available lung screening image quality phantom were scanned on a series of scan protocols from a previous UK lung screening pilot and on an alternative protocol. The chest phantom scans were used to assess the CT dose metrics on community-based mobile CT scanners and comparisons were made with published recommended doses. Scans of the image quality phantom were objectively assessed against the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) recommendations. Protocol adjustments were made to ensure that the recommended dose and image quality levels were both achieved. The alternative scan protocol yielded doses up to 72% lower than on the previously used protocols with a CTDIvol of 0.6mGy for the 55 kg equivalent phantom and 1.3mGy with an additional 6 cm of tissue equivalent material in place. Scans on the existing protocols failed on two of the QIBA image quality metrics (edge enhancement and 3D resolution aspect ratio). Following adjustments to the reconstruction parameters of the resulting image quality met all six QIBA recommendations. Radiologist review of phantom images with this scan protocol deemed them suitable for a lung screening trial. Scan protocols yielding low radiation doses and high levels of objectively assessed image quality which meet published criteria can be established through the use of specific anthropomorphic and image quality phantoms, and are deliverable in community-based lung cancer screening. Development of a standard methodology for establishing CT lung screening scanning protocolsUse of QIBA recommendations as objective image quality metricsStandardised lung phantoms are essential tools for setting up lung screening protocols.

Community-based Lung Cancer Screening Results in Relation to Patient and Radiologist Characteristics: The PROSPR Consortium.

Rationale: Lung-RADS classification was developed to standardize reporting and management of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomographic (LDCT) imaging. Although variation in Lung-RADS distribution between healthcare systems has been reported, it is unclear if this is explained by patient characteristics, radiologist experience with lung cancer screening, or other factors. Objectives: Our objective was to determine if patient or radiologist factors are associated with Lung-RADS score. Methods: In the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) Lung consortium, we conducted a study of patients who received their first screening LDCT imaging at one of the five healthcare systems in the PROSPR Lung Research Center from May 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017. Data on LDCT scans, patient factors, and radiologist characteristics were obtained via electronic health records. LDCT scan findings were categorized using Lung-RADS (negative [1], benign [2], probably benign [3], or suspicious [4]). We used generalized estimating equations with a multinomial distribution to compare the odds of Lung-RADS 3, and separately Lung-RADS 4, versus Lung-RADS 1 or 2 and estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between Lung-RADS assignment and patient and radiologist characteristics. Results: Analyses included 8,556 patients; 24% were assigned Lung-RADS 1, 60% Lung-RADS 2, 10% Lung-RADS 3, and 5% Lung-RADS 4. Age was positively associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) and 4 (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was positively associated with Lung-RADS 4 (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.45-2.20); obesity was inversely associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.84) and 4 (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.75). There was no association between sex, race, ethnicity, education, or smoking status and Lung-RADS assignment. Radiologist volume of interpreting screening LDCT scans, years in practice, and thoracic specialty were also not associated with Lung-RADS assignment. Conclusions: Healthcare systems that are comprised of patients with an older age distribution or higher levels of COPD will have a greater proportion of screening LDCT scans with Lung-RADS 3 or 4 findings and should plan for additional resources to support appropriate and timely management of noted positive findings.

Community-based lung cancer screening adherence to Lung-RADS recommendations.

10540 Background: In the NLST and NELSON trials, most low-dose CT (LDCT) screen-detected lung cancers were not diagnosed during the first round of screening, suggesting that longitudinal adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) recommendations is key. Adherence was as high as 95% in clinical trials, but limited data exist regarding LCS adherence in clinical practice. We aimed to determine adherence to Lung-RADS recommendations among community-based patients undergoing LCS. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients screened for lung cancer at healthcare systems within the Lung Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) Consortium. We included 55-80 year-old current or former smokers who received a baseline (T0) LDCT with a Lung-RADS score between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017 and excluded patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer prior to the T0 scan. Over a 24-month period, we calculated the proportion of patients adherent to Lung-RADS recommendations and evaluated associations with patient-level (age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index, Elixhauser comorbidities, year of T0 scan, and Lung-RADS score) and census tract (median family income, level of education) data, using multivariable logistic regression with mixed effects to account for site variability. Results: Of the 6,723 patients in our cohort (median age 65 years [IQR 60-69]; 45.1% female; 73.0% white; 59.0% current smokers), 5,583 (83.0%) had Lung-RADS 1 or 2 T0 scans, 733 (10.9%) Lung-RADS 3, 274 (4.1%) Lung-RADS 4A, and 133 (2.0%) Lung-RADS 4B or 4X. Overall, 55.2% (3,709/6,723) of patients were adherent (Table). In the final multivariable model, Black patients had reduced adherence compared to white patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94), while greater adherence was observed in former smokers compared to current smokers (aOR 1.33, 95% 1.19-1.49). Compared to individuals with a negative T0 scan (Lung-RADS 1 or 2), those with Lung-RADS 3 (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31-1.86), 4A (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.24-2.15), or 4B/4X (aOR 3.59, 95% CI 2.30-5.60) T0 scans had greater odds of adherence. Conclusions: In the largest study of real-world patients receiving LCS to date, adherence to Lung-RADS recommendations is lower than previously observed in clinical trials. Our results highlight the need for further study of system-level mechanisms to improve longitudinal LCS adherence rates.[Table: see text]

Utility of incorporating a gene-based lung cancer risk test on uptake and adherence in a community-based lung cancer screening pilot study.

Based on the results of randomized control trials, screening for lung cancer using computed tomography (CT) is now widely recommended. However, adherence to screening remains an issue outside the clinical trial setting. This study examines the utility of biomarker-based risk assessment on uptake and subsequent adherence in a community screening study.In a single arm pilot study, current or former smokers > 50 years old with 20 + pack year history were recruited following local advertising. One hundred and fifty seven participants volunteered to participate in the study that offered an optional gene-based lung cancer risk assessment followed by low-dose CT according to a standardised screening protocol.All 157 volunteers who attended visit 1 underwent the gene-based risk assessment comprising of a clinical questionnaire and buccal swab. Of this group, 154 subsequently attended for CT screening (98%) and were followed prospectively for a median of 2.7 years. A participant’s adherence to screening was influenced by their baseline lung cancer risk category, with overall adherence in those with a positive scan being significantly greater in the “very high” risk group compared to “moderate” and “high” risk categories (71% vs 52%, Odds ratio = 2.27, 95% confidence interval of 1.02–5.05, P = 0.047). Those in the “moderate” risk group were not different to those in the “high” risk group (52% and 52%, P > 0.05).In this proof-of-concept study, personalised gene-based lung cancer risk assessment was well accepted, associated with a 98% uptake for screening and increased adherence for those in the highest risk group.

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...

'I had to tell my GP I had lung cancer': patient perspectives of hospital- and community-based lung cancer care.

Lung cancer care spans both hospital- and community-based healthcare settings, and suboptimal communication between healthcare providers impacts on continuity and quality of care. Patients' experiences regarding: (1) communication between healthcare providers; and (2) the role of their GP during cancer treatment was explored in interviews with 47 Western Australian lung cancer patients. Thematic analysis using a phenomenological approach was undertaken to derive key themes regarding participant experiences. Poor communication between hospital cancer specialists (HCSs) influenced participants' treatment choices and perceptions of the quality of their care. Information provided by HCSs to GPs was often delayed or incomplete, and many participants perceived themselves as a messenger between healthcare settings. Participants' opinions about the GP role during cancer treatment ranged from 'no role' to an 'active member of the treating team'. A new model of cancer care is needed where the GP is considered part of the treating team. Early involvement of GPs and two-way communication between hospital and primary care during the disease continuum is required for this to occur.

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.