Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based 'Lung Health Check' pilot in deprived areas of Manchester.

We report baseline results of a community-based, targeted, low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Ever smokers, aged 55-74 years, were invited to 'lung health checks' (LHCs) next to local shopping centres, with immediate access to LDCT for those at high risk (6-year risk ≥1.51%, PLCOM2012 calculator). 75% of attendees (n=1893/2541) were ranked in the lowest deprivation quintile; 56% were high risk and of 1384 individuals screened, 3% (95% CI 2.3% to 4.1%) had lung cancer (80% early stage) of whom 65% had surgical resection. Taking lung cancer screening into communities, with an LHC approach, is effective and engages populations in deprived areas.

Second round results from the Manchester 'Lung Health Check' community-based targeted lung cancer screening pilot.

We report results from the second annual screening round (T1) of Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot of community-based lung cancer screening in deprived areas (undertaken June to August 2017). Screening adherence was 90% (n=1194/1323): 92% of CT scans were classified negative, 6% indeterminate and 2.5% positive; there were no interval cancers. Lung cancer incidence was 1.6% (n=19), 79% stage I, treatments included surgery (42%, n=9), stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (26%, n=5) and radical radiotherapy (5%, n=1). False-positive rate was 34.5% (n=10/29), representing 0.8% of T1 participants (n=10/1194). Targeted community-based lung cancer screening promotes high screening adherence and detects high rates of early stage lung cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of the Manchester 'lung health checks', a community-based lung cancer low-dose CT screening pilot.

BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening programmes have taken very different approaches in the design of the informative trials and the methods applied to determine cost-effectiveness. Therefore, it has not been possible to determine if differences in cost-effectiveness are due to different screening approaches or the evaluation methodology. This study reports the findings of an evaluation of the first round of a community-based, LDCT screening pilot Manchester, applying previously published methodology to ensure consistency. METHODS: Using the economic evaluation method reported in the UKLS trial, applying Manchester specific evidence where possible, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT for lung cancer. Estimates of the total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. RESULTS: The Manchester programme cost £663,076, diagnosed 42 patients with lung cancer resulting in a gain in population health of 88.13 discounted life years, equivalent to 65.85 QALYs. This implied an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,069/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: We found the Manchester programme to be a cost-effective use of limited NHS resources. The findings suggest that further research is now needed not as to whether LDCT screening is cost-effective but under what conditions can it improve patient health by the most while remaining cost-effective.

Effect of second timed appointments for non-attenders of breast cancer screening in England: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In England, participation in breast cancer screening has been decreasing in the past 10 years, approaching the national minimum standard of 70%. Interventions aimed at improving participation need to be investigated and put into practice to stop this downward trend. We assessed the effect on participation of sending invitations for breast screening with a timed appointment to women who did not attend their first offered appointment within the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). METHODS: In this open, randomised controlled trial, women in six centres in the NHSBSP in England who were invited for routine breast cancer screening were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an invitation to a second appointment with fixed date and time (intervention) or an invitation letter with a telephone number to call to book their new screening appointment (control) in the event of non-attendance at the first offered appointment. Randomisation was by SX number, a sequential unique identifier of each woman within the NHSBSP, and at the beginning of the study a coin toss decided whether women with odd or even SX numbers would be allocated to the intervention group. Women aged 50-70 years who did not attend their first offered appointment were eligible for the analysis. The primary endpoint was participation (ie, attendance at breast cancer screening) within 90 days of the date of the first offered appointment; we used Poisson regression to compare the proportion of women who participated in screening in the study groups. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Barts Health, number 009304QM. FINDINGS: We obtained 33 146 records of women invited for breast cancer screening at the six centres between June 2, 2014, and Sept 30, 2015, who did not attend their first offered appointment. 26 054 women were eligible for this analysis (12 807 in the intervention group and 13 247 in the control group). Participation within 90 days of the first offered appointment was significantly higher in the intervention group (2861 [22%] of 12 807) than in the control group (1632 [12%] of 13 247); relative risk of participation 1·81 (95% CI 1·70-1·93; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: These findings show that a policy of second appointments with fixed date and time for non-attenders of breast screening is effective in improving participation. This strategy can be easily implemented by the screening sites and, if combined with simple interventions, could further increase participation and ensure an upward shift in the participation trend nationally. Whether the policy should vary by time since last attended screen will have to be considered. FUNDING: National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes and Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

A randomised trial of the effect of postal reminders on attendance for breast screening.

BACKGROUND: Some women make an informed choice not to attend breast screening, whereas others may have forgotten about the appointment. We report on a randomised trial that investigates whether a reminder letter affects attendance. METHODS: Women scheduled for a breast screening appointment were randomised to either receive a reminder letter a few days before their breast screening appointment in addition to the standard invitation letter (intervention) or not (control). The primary outcome was attendance within 30 days of the first offered appointment. Secondary outcomes were attendance within 90 and 180 days. RESULTS: In all, 11,383 (49.9%) women were randomised to the intervention and 11,445 (50.1%) to the control. In the intervention arm, 7759 (68.2%) attended within 30 days of the first offered appointment compared with 7349 (64.2%) in the control arm. This difference was significant (P<0.001). The odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) for the primary end point was 1.19 (1.13-1.26). This was not significantly affected by age, socioeconomic status or type of screen (prevalent or incident). Secondary endpoint analyses supported these results. Results did differ, however, between the different centres studied. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that postal reminders increase breast screening uptake, and could be practicable to implement in the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

The appraisal of public health interventions: the use of theory.

BACKGROUND: Public health decision-making is hampered by inappropriate adherence to underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which give inconclusive results and lead to decision-makers being loath to recommend interventions with strong theoretical and observational support. METHODS: We outline situations in which robust decisions about health interventions can be made without trial evidence. We present a new approach in which theory, causal models and past observations are given proper regard in the decision-making process. RESULTS: Using our approach, we provide examples where the use of causal theories and observations in areas, such as salt reduction, smoking cessation and gardening to improve mental health, is sufficient for deciding that such interventions are effective for improving health without needing the support of underpowered RCTs. Particularly where RCT evidence is inconclusive, our approach may provide similar aggregate health outcomes for society for vastly lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: When knowledge and theoretical understanding are unable sufficiently to reduce doubt about the direction of effect from an intervention, decisions should be made using evidence-based medicine approaches. There are, however, many cases where the combination of robust theory, causal understanding and observation are able to provide sufficient evidence of the direction of effect from an intervention that current practice should be altered.

A qualitative investigation of the influence of time since graduation on English dentists' approach to the care of young children.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, general dental practitioners (GDPs) provide the majority of dental care to young children. The approach to undergraduate teaching of paediatric dentistry varies across UK dental schools. There is no understanding of how undergraduate teaching influences practice in the first few years after qualification and how this influence behaves over time as dentists mature as clinicians. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to gain a deeper understanding of the influence of time since graduation on how GDPs manage the dental care of their child patients. DESIGN: A qualitative study, with three interviewers conducted 93 interviews with GDPs practising in the north-west of England. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and content analysis was used with the purpose of identifying themes from the data. RESULTS: Findings showed that formal postgraduate education was not a great influence upon the GDPs' approach to care over time. Change in approach was influenced by experiential learning over a GDP's career and external influences such as policy change, but this was not underpinned by any formal reflective practice. CONCLUSIONS: Education is just one of many influences on clinical practice over the whole of a clinician's career. A gradual change in clinical practice is influenced by the personal experience of dentists treating children.