1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

      research-article
      , PhD, , MBChB, , PhD, , PhD, , MBBS , MSc, , BSc, , MSc , MSc, , MA, , PhD, , MSc , MBBS, , MSc, , PhD, , MD, , MD, , MSc, , PhD , PhD , for the SUMMIT consortium
      The Lancet. Public health

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer.

          Methods

          In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55–77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders reinvited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866.

          Findings

          Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88–0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42–1·54] among those aged 65–69 years vs those aged 55–59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76–2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09–1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83–1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83–0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13–1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19–1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08–1·31] for other Asian ethnicity).

          Interpretation

          Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response.

          Funding

          GRAIL.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries

          This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions. There will be an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases (17.0 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million cancer deaths (9.5 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018. In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.6% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (18.4% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (11.6%), prostate cancer (7.1%), and colorectal cancer (6.1%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (9.2%), stomach cancer (8.2%), and liver cancer (8.2%) for mortality. Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality). Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality. The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors. It is noteworthy that high-quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence-based cancer control programs, are not available in most low- and middle-income countries. The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1-31. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

            (2011)
            The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer. From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02). Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                101699003
                Lancet Public Health
                Lancet Public Health
                The Lancet. Public health
                2468-2667
                01 February 2023
                27 September 2023
                06 October 2023
                : 8
                : 2
                : e130-e140
                Affiliations
                Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory
                Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre
                University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group, London, UK
                Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory
                Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory; University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
                Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre
                Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory
                Lungs For Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory
                Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre
                University College London, London, UK; Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
                National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK; Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
                Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                Whittington Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Essex, UK
                Homerton University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, UK
                The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Essex, UK
                North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
                Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
                Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
                Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
                Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
                Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Surrey, UK
                King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Essex, UK
                University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex, UK
                Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
                Lungs For Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory
                Lungs For Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory
                Lungs For Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory; Centre for Medical Image Computing, London, UK
                Killick Street Health Centre, London, UK
                Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group, London, UK
                Noclor Research Support, London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Prof Sam Janes, Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK s.janes@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                [*]

                Joint last authors

                [†]

                Members listed at the end of the paper

                Article
                EMS188589
                10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00258-4
                7615156
                36709053
                d1f7fbd3-1a06-4860-8ef1-07778fce3dce

                This work is licensed under a BY 4.0 International license.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article