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

Samantha L Quaife, Mamta Ruparel, Rebecca J Beeken, Andy McEwen, John Isitt, Gary Nolan, Karen Sennett, David R Baldwin, Stephen W Duffy, Samuel M Janes, Jane Wardle, Samantha L Quaife, Mamta Ruparel, Rebecca J Beeken, Andy McEwen, John Isitt, Gary Nolan, Karen Sennett, David R Baldwin, Stephen W Duffy, Samuel M Janes, Jane Wardle

Abstract

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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02558101.

Keywords: Cancer screening; Health inequalities; Lung cancer; Smoking.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trial flow diagram

References

    1. Cancer Research UK: Cancer mortality statistics (2014). . Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
    1. ONS. Cancer Registration Statistics, England (Series MB1), No. 42, 2011 (2013). . Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
    1. ONS. Statistical Bulletin Cancer Survival in England: Adults Diagnosed, 2009 to 2013, followed up to 2014 (2015). . Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
    1. Cancer Research UK. Statistics and outlook for lung cancer (2014). . Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
    1. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Stage Breakdown by CCG 2013. London: NCIN; 2015. . Accessed 16 Apr 2016.
    1. Elliss-Brookes L, McPhail S, Ives A, Greenslade M, Shelton J, Hiom S, et al. Routes to diagnosis for cancer - determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:1220–6. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.408.
    1. O’Dowd EL, McKeever TM, Baldwin DR, Anwar S, Powell HA, Gibson JE, et al. What characteristics of primary care and patients are associated with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK? Thorax. 2015;70:161–8. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205692.
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873.
    1. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision memo for screening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439 N) (2015). . Accessed 5 Aug 2015.
    1. Baldwin DR, O’Dowd EL. Next steps and barriers to implementing lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20140416. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20140416.
    1. Kovalchik SA, Tammemagi M, Berg CD, Caporaso NE, Riley TL, Korch M, et al. Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:245–54. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301851.
    1. Marcus PM, Lenz S, Sammons D, Black W, Garg K. Recruitment methods employed in the National Lung Screening Trial. J Med Screen. 2012;19:94–102. doi: 10.1258/jms.2012.012016.
    1. Lopes Pegna A, Picozzi G, Mascalchi M, Maria Carozzi F, Carrozzi L, Comin C, et al. Design, recruitment and baseline results of the ITALUNG trial for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Lung Cancer. 2009;64:34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.07.003.
    1. van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Mali WPTM, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, et al. Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON) Int J Cancer. 2007;120:868–74. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22134.
    1. McRonald FE, Yadegarfar G, Baldwin DR, Devaraj A, Brain KE, Eisen T, et al. The UK Lung Screen (UKLS): demographic profile of first 88,897 approaches provides recommendations for population screening. Cancer Prev Res. 2014;7:362–71. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0206.
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Clapp JD, Clingan KL, Gareen IF, et al. Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1771–9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq434.
    1. Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2011;73:325–31. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.12.018.
    1. Cassidy A, Myles JP, van Tongeren M, Page RD, Liloglou T, Duffy SW, et al. The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:270–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604158.
    1. Bryan L, Westmaas L, Alcaraz K, Jemal A. Cigarette smoking and cancer screening underutilization by state: BRFSS 2010. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16:1183–9. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu047.
    1. Byrne MM, Davila EP, Zhao W, Parker D, Hooper MW, Caban-Martinez A, et al. Cancer screening behaviors among smokers and non-smokers. Cancer Epidemiol. 2010;34:611–7. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2010.06.017.
    1. Vander Weg MW, Howren MB, Cai X. Use of routine clinical preventive services among daily smokers, non-daily smokers, former smokers, and never-smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14:123–30. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr141.
    1. Hayton C, Clark A, Olive S, Browne P, Galey P, Knights E, et al. Barriers to pulmonary rehabilitation: characteristics that predict patient attendance and adherence. Respir Med. 2013;107:401–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.11.016.
    1. Dalton ARH, Bottle A, Okoro C, Majeed A, Millett C. Uptake of the NHS Health Checks programme in a deprived, culturally diverse setting: cross-sectional study. J Public Health. 2011;33:422–9. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr034.
    1. Infante M, Lutman FR, Cavuto S, Brambilla G, Chiesa G, Passera E, et al. Lung cancer screening with spiral CT: baseline results of the randomized DANTE trial. Lung Cancer. 2008;59:355–63. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.08.040.
    1. Quaife SL, McEwen A, Janes SM, Wardle J. Attitudes towards lung cancer screening within socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: a qualitative study. Lancet. 2014;384:S16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62142-5.
    1. Silvestri GA, Nietert PJ, Zoller J, Carter C, Bradford D. Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts. Thorax. 2007;62:126–30. doi: 10.1136/thx.2005.056036.
    1. Patel D, Akporobaro A, Chinyanganya N, Hackshaw A, Seale C, Spiro SG, et al. Attitudes to participation in a lung cancer screening trial: a qualitative study. Thorax. 2012;67:418–25. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200055.
    1. Delmerico J, Hyland A, Celestino P, Reid M, Cummings KM. Patient willingness and barriers to receiving a CT scan for lung cancer screening. Lung Cancer. 2014;84:307–9. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.03.003.
    1. Jonnalagadda S, Bergamo C, Lin JJ, Lurslurchachai L, Diefenbach M, Smith C, et al. Beliefs and attitudes about lung cancer screening among smokers. Lung Cancer. 2012;77:526–31. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.05.095.
    1. Weinstein ND, Blalock SJ. The precaution adoption process model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswaneth K, editors. Health behavior and health education. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. pp. 123–47.
    1. Cole SR, Smith A, Wilson C, Turnbull D, Esterman A, Young GP. An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2007;14:73–5. doi: 10.1258/096914107781261927.
    1. Libby G, Bray J, Champion J, Brownlee LA, Birrell J, Gorman DR, et al. Pre-notification increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening in all demographic groups: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2011;18:24–9. doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.011002.
    1. Camilloni L, Ferroni E, Cendales BJ, Pezzarossi A, Furnari G, Borgia P, et al. Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:464. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-464.
    1. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, Mercer SL, Wilson KM, DeVinney B, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:97–118. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.009.
    1. Waller J, Douglas E, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in the UK breast cancer screening programme: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002703. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002703.
    1. Waller J, Whitaker KL, Winstanley K, Power E, Wardle J. A survey study of women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in Britain. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:1831–5. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.482.
    1. Davis TC, Mark V, Marin E, Parker RM. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:134–49. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.52.3.134.
    1. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. The 2011 Skills for Life Survey: A Survey of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT Levels in England (2012). . Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
    1. Evans JSBT, Stanovich KE. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013;8:223–41. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685.
    1. Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:354–66. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10371830.
    1. Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:681–95. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07307270.
    1. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin; 2011.
    1. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J. Measuring the heaviness of smoking: using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Addiction. 1989;84:791–800. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03059.x.
    1. Linder SK, Swank PR, Vernon SW, Mullen PD, Morgan RO, Volk RJ. Validity of a low literacy version of the decisional conflict scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85:521–4. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.012.
    1. Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, Irwig L, McGeechan K, Jacklyn G, et al. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1642–52. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60123-4.
    1. Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, Rovner DR, Breer ML, Rothert ML, et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: The satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16:58–64. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9601600114.
    1. von Wagner C, Good A, Wright D, Rachet B, Obichere A, Bloom S, et al. Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation in the first round of the national screening programme in England. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(Suppl):S60–3. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605392.
    1. Wardle J, Williamson S, McCaffery K, Sutton S, Taylor T, Edwards R, et al. Increasing attendance at colorectal cancer screening: Testing the efficacy of a mailed, psychoeducational intervention in a community sample of older adults. Heal Psychol. 2003;22:99–105. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.22.1.99.
    1. Hewitson P, Ward AM, Heneghan C, Halloran SP, Mant D. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:475–80. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.255.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner