Psychological outcomes of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in a multisite demonstration screening pilot: the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT)

Sonja Kummer, Jo Waller, Mamta Ruparel, Stephen W Duffy, Samuel M Janes, Samantha L Quaife, Sonja Kummer, Jo Waller, Mamta Ruparel, Stephen W Duffy, Samuel M Janes, Samantha L Quaife

Abstract

Background: Previous studies of psychological burden in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials may lack generalisability due to participation bias and control arms having elevated distress.

Methods: Current and former smokers (n=787, aged 60-75) within a real-world screening demonstration pilot completed measures of lung cancer worry at three time points (T0: appointment, T1: next day, T2: 3 months) and anxiety and depression at two time points (T0 and T2). A 'screening unaware' community sample (n=383) with the same age and smoking characteristics completed these measures once (T0). Mean scores were compared by sample type and LDCT result.

Results: Compared with the community sample (T0), mean scores were higher in the screening sample, and statistically significantly increased in adjusted analyses, for lung cancer worry at T0 and T2 (mean (M): 9.32; 95% CI 8.96 to 9.69 vs M: 11.34; 11.09 to 11.59 and M: 11.88; 11.49 to 12.27), for anxiety at T0 and T2 (M: 3.32; 2.94 to 3.70 vs M: 4.73; 4.42 to 5.04 and M: 5.78; 5.33 to 6.23) and depression at T2 (M: 3.85; 3.44 to 4.27 vs M: 4.15; 3.76 to 4.55). Scores were highest for those with indeterminate (eg, T2 anxiety M: 6.93; 5.65 to 8.21) and incidental findings (primary care follow-up M: 5.34; 4.67 to 6.02) and those ineligible for screening (M: 6.51; 5.25 to 7.77). Being female, younger, not in paid employment, not married/cohabiting with a partner and lower education predicted poorer psychological outcomes at T0, but not T2 after adjusting for baseline scores. Mean scores remained within 'normal' clinical ranges.

Conclusion: Psychological distress was raised among high-risk individuals undergoing LDCT screening in a real-world setting, but overall differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. It will be critical to monitor the psychological impact of services longitudinally across diverse settings, including subgroups vulnerable to clinically elevated distress.

Trial registration: The Lung Screen Uptake Trial was registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy (ISRCTN) (Number: ISRCTN21774741) on 23 September 2015 and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02558101) on 22 September 2015.

Keywords: lung cancer; psychology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: SK, JW, SWD and SLQ declare no support from financial organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years. MR was, and SMJ is, supported by funding from a commercial US healthcare company (GRAIL) as part of funding for a large trial of low dose CT screening, called the ‘SUMMIT Study’. SLQ collaborates on the SUMMIT Study. SMJ has been paid by Astra Zeneca, BARD1 Bioscience and Achilles Therapeutics for being an Advisory Board Expert and travel to one US conference. SMJ receives grant funding from Owlstone for a separate research study. MR has received travel funding for a conference and educational meeting from Takeda and Astra Zenica. All authors perceive that these disclosures pose no academic conflict for this study. All authors declare no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Cancer Research UK Lung cancer mortality statistics. Available:
    1. Cancer Research UK Lung cancer incidence statistics. Available:
    1. Goldstraw P, Chansky K, Crowley J, et al. . The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:39–51. 10.1016/j.jtho.2015.09.009
    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. . Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395–409. 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. . Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 2020;382:503–13. 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793
    1. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Available:
    1. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. . Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA 2012;307:2418–29. 10.1001/jama.2012.5521
    1. van den Bergh KAM, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJJM, et al. . Short-Term health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON). Br J Cancer 2010;102:27–34. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605459
    1. Brain K, Lifford KJ, Carter B, et al. . Long-Term psychosocial outcomes of low-dose CT screening: results of the UK lung cancer screening randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2016;71:996–1005. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208283
    1. Wu GX, Raz DJ, Brown L, et al. . Psychological burden associated with lung cancer screening: a systematic review. Clin Lung Cancer 2016;17:315–24. 10.1016/j.cllc.2016.03.007
    1. van den Bergh KAM, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJJM, et al. . Long-Term effects of lung cancer computed tomography screening on health-related quality of life: the NELSON trial. Eur Respir J 2011;38:154–61. 10.1183/09031936.00123410
    1. Taghizadeh N, Tremblay A, Cressman S, et al. . Health-Related quality of life and anxiety in the PAN-CAN lung cancer screening cohort. BMJ Open 2019;9:e024719. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024719
    1. McRonald FE, Yadegarfar G, Baldwin DR, 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. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0206
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. , National Lung Screening Trial Research Team . Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized National lung screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1771–9. 10.1093/jnci/djq434
    1. Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, et al. . Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011;73:325–31. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.12.018
    1. Aggestrup LM, Hestbech MS, Siersma V, et al. . Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000663. 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000663
    1. Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Beeken RJ, et al. . 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. BMC Cancer 2016;16:281–282. 10.1186/s12885-016-2316-z
    1. Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Dickson JL, et al. . Lung screen uptake trial (LSUT): randomized controlled clinical trial testing targeted invitation materials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020;201:965–75. 10.1164/rccm.201905-0946OC
    1. Fidler JA, Shahab L, West O, et al. . 'The smoking toolkit study': a national study of smoking and smoking cessation in England. BMC Public Health 2011;11:479. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-479
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
    1. Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C, et al. . Mammography adherence and psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1074–80. 10.1093/jnci/85.13.1074
    1. Shih T-H, Xitao Fan F. . Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field methods 2008;20:249–71. 10.1177/1525822X08317085
    1. Slatore CG, Wiener RS. Pulmonary nodules: a small problem for many, severe distress for some, and how to communicate about it. Chest 2018;153:1004–15. 10.1016/j.chest.2017.10.013
    1. Rasmussen JF, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, et al. . Psychosocial consequences in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST). Lung Cancer 2015;87:65–72. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.11.003
    1. Vrinten C, van Jaarsveld CHM, Waller J, et al. . The structure and demographic correlates of cancer fear. BMC Cancer 2014;14:597. 10.1186/1471-2407-14-597
    1. Hinz A, Herzberg PY, Lordick F, et al. . Age and gender differences in anxiety and depression in cancer patients compared with the general population. Eur J Cancer Care 2019;28:e13129. 10.1111/ecc.13129
    1. Bjelland I, Krokstad S, Mykletun A, et al. . Does a higher educational level protect against anxiety and depression? The HUNT study. Soc Sci Med 2008;66:1334–45. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.12.019
    1. Lorant V, Croux C, Weich S, et al. . Depression and socio-economic risk factors: 7-year longitudinal population study. Br J Psychiatry 2007;190:293–8. 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.020040
    1. Ali N, Lifford KJ, Carter B, et al. . Barriers to uptake among high-risk individuals declining participation in lung cancer screening: a mixed methods analysis of the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008254. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008254

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner