The reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a lung cancer screening setting
Jennifer L Dickson, Amyn Bhamani, Samantha L Quaife, Carolyn Horst, Sophie Tisi, Helen Hall, Priyam Verghese, Andrew Creamer, Ruth Prendecki, John McCabe, Kylie Gyertson, Vicky Bowyer, Ethaar El-Emir, Alice Cotton, Simranjit Mehta, Fanta Bojang, Claire Levermore, Anne-Marie Mullin, Jonathan Teague, Laura Farrelly, Arjun Nair, Anand Devaraj, Allan Hackshaw, Sam M Janes, SUMMIT consortium, Jennifer L Dickson, Amyn Bhamani, Samantha L Quaife, Carolyn Horst, Sophie Tisi, Helen Hall, Priyam Verghese, Andrew Creamer, Ruth Prendecki, John McCabe, Kylie Gyertson, Vicky Bowyer, Ethaar El-Emir, Alice Cotton, Simranjit Mehta, Fanta Bojang, Claire Levermore, Anne-Marie Mullin, Jonathan Teague, Laura Farrelly, Arjun Nair, Anand Devaraj, Allan Hackshaw, Sam M Janes, SUMMIT consortium
Abstract
Objectives: Pulmonary nodules are commonly found in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS), with results typically communicated by face-to-face or telephone consultation. Providing LCS on a population basis requires resource efficient and scalabe communication methods. Written communication provides one such method. Here, we assess participant satisfaction with this approach in a LCS setting and investigate characteristics associated with dissatisfaction.
Materials and methods: The SUMMIT Study is a prospective observational cohort study which aims to assess the implementation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) scanning for LCS in a high-risk population and validate a multi-cancer early detection blood test (NCT03934866). Participants with indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring a three-month interval LDCT were informed of their result by postal letter and given a face-to-face appointment with a study practitioner at their interval LDCT appointment. At this appointment, having previously received their results letter, participants were verbally asked questions to assess their satisfaction with, and preferences for, methods of results communication.
Results: 1,900 participants were included in the analysis. 82.8% (n = 1573) were satisfied with receiving their results by letter, with 2.9% (n = 55) reporting dissatisfaction. 86.3% (n = 1640) stated it was their preferred communication method and 77.3% (n = 1469) reported that their letter contained the right amount of information. Participants from less deprived socioeconomic quintiles were more likely to report that the letter contained insufficient information and individuals aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to do so. Although 13.7% (n = 261) participants had discussed their results with their General Practitioner (GP) prior to the study visit, 83.9% (n = 219) of these participants were satisfied with receiving results by letter, with the same proportion preferring this communication method.
Conclusion: We report high participant satisfaction with the reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a LCS setting. We believe this provides a feasible route forward for large-scale screening programmes.
Keywords: Communication; Early detection of cancer; Patient satisfaction; Solitary pulmonary nodule.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: SUMMIT is sponsored and conducted by University College London and funded by GRAIL through a research grant awarded to SMJ as principal investigator. SLQ collaborates on the SUMMIT study and has received honorarium from Elsevier for writing a book chapter. AN is a member of the advisory board for Aidence BV and Faculty Science Ltd, has received a consultation fee from MSD and honorarium for travel to a conference from Takeda. AN is an Executive Committee member for the British Society of Thoracic Imaging, Lung Taskforce member for the British Lung Foundation and clinical lead for the NHS England Targeted Lung Health Checks Programme. AH has received an honorarium for an advisory bord meeting for GRAIL, a consultation fee for Evidera Inc for a GRAIL initiated project, and previously owned shares in Illumina. SMJ has received honoraria for travel, consultancy or speaking from Astra Zeneca, BARD1 Bioscience, Optellum, Jansen, Takeda, Evidera and Achilles Therapeutics. SMJ received grant funding from Owlstone for a separate research study and has a family member who is an employee of Astra Zeneca. AC (2) received a HEE NIHR Pre-Doctoral Clinical Academic Fellowship. All authors perceive that these disclosures pose no academic conflict for this study and declare no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
References
- Crosbie P.A., Balata H., Evison M., Atack M., Bayliss-Brideaux V., Colligan D., Duerden R., Eaglesfield J., Edwards T., Elton P., Foster J., Greaves M., Hayler G., Higgins C., Howells J., Irion K., Karunaratne D., Kelly J., King Z., Manson S., Mellor S., Miller D., Myerscough A., Newton T., O’Leary M., Pearson R., Pickford J., Sawyer R., Screaton N.J., Sharman A., Simmons M., Smith E., Taylor B., Taylor S., Walsham A., Watts A., Whittaker J., Yarnell L., Threlfall A., Barber P.V., Tonge J., Booton R. Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Thorax. 2019;74(4):405–409. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211377.
- Field J.K., Duffy S.W., Baldwin D.R., Whynes D.K., Devaraj A., Brain K.E., Eisen T., Gosney J., Green B.A., Holemans J.A., Kavanagh T., Kerr K.M., Ledson M., Lifford K.J., McRonald F.E., Nair A., Page R.D., Parmar M.K.B., Rassl D.M., Rintoul R.C., Screaton N.J., Wald N.J., Weller D., Williamson P.R., Yadegarfar G., Hansell D.M. UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening. Thorax. 2016;71(2):161–170. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207140.
- Bartlett E.C., Kemp S.V., Ridge C.A., Desai S.R., Mirsadraee S., Morjaria J.B., Shah P.L., Popat S., Nicholson A.G., Rice A.J., Jordan S., Begum S., Mani A., Derbyshire J., Morris K., Chen M., Peacock C., Addis J., Martins M., Kaye S.B., Padley S.P.G., Devaraj A., McDonald F., Robertus J.L., Lim E., Barnett J., Finch J., Dalal P., Yousaf N., Jamali A., Ivashniova N., Phillips C., Newsom-Davies T., Lee R., Vaghani P., Whiteside S., Vaughan-Smith S. Baseline Results of the West London lung cancer screening pilot study - Impact of mobile scanners and dual risk model utilisation. Lung Cancer. 2020;148:12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.07.027.
- Horst C., Dickson J., Tisi S., Hall H., Verghese P., Mullin A., Farrelly L., Levermore C., Gyertson K., Clarke C., Allen B., Hamilton S., Hartman A., Nair A., Devaraj A., Hackshaw A., Janes S. P41.04 The SUMMIT Study: Pulmonary Nodule and Incidental Findings in the First 10,000 Participants of a Population-Based Low-Dose CT Screening Study. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2021;16(3):S473–S474. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.01.818.
- Horst C., Dickson J.L., Tisi S., Ruparel M., Nair A., Devaraj A., Janes S.M. Delivering low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: a pragmatic approach. Thorax. 2020;75(10):831–832. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215131.
- Quaife S.L., Janes S.M., Brain K.E. The person behind the nodule: a narrative review of the psychological impact of lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021;10(5):2427–2440. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-20-1179.
- Slatore C.G., Wiener R.S. Pulmonary nodules: a small problem for many, severe distress for some, and how to communicate about it. Chest. 2018;153(4):1004–1015. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.10.013.
- Wiener R.S., Clark J.A., Koppelman E., Bolton R., Fix G.M., Slatore C.G., Kathuria H. Patient vs Clinician Perspectives on Communication About Results of Lung Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study. Chest. 2020;158(3):1240–1249. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.081.
Source: PubMed