Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Apr 15;201(8):965-975.
doi: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0946OC.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Samantha L Quaife et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. .

Abstract

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Keywords: behavioral sciences; early detection of cancer; lung neoplasms; socioeconomic factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) trial flow diagram. LDCT = low-dose computed tomography.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Uptake by study-specific deprivation quintile (Q) Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for each invitation group (N = 2,012). Note that 2010 IMD rank quintile with cutoffs were based on distribution in the LSUT sample.

Comment in

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. - PubMed
    1. Goldstraw P, Chansky K, Crowley J, Rami-Porta R, Asamura H, Eberhardt WEE, et al. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee, Advisory Boards, and Participating Institutions; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee Advisory Boards and Participating Institutions. 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. - PubMed
    1. Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre (ECRIC) Stage distribution of cancers diagnosed in 2009 in the East of England by cancer site and area of residence. 2009 [accessed 2019 Mar 8] Available from: http://www.ecric.nhs.uk/docs/ECRIC_incidenceXstage_2009.pdf.
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409. - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, Ten Haaf KE, Oudkerk M. Effects of volume CT lung cancer screening: mortality results of the NELSON randomised-controlled population based trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:S185.

Publication types

Substances

Associated data