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
. 2021 Jun 7;31(1):36.
doi: 10.1038/s41533-021-00246-8.

Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot

Affiliations

Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot

Emily C Bartlett et al. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. .

Abstract

Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a "lung health check" (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Flow charts demonstrating attendance of participants referred to primary care for incidental imaging findings or further clinical assessment following a LHC.
For participants referred, the denominator is the number of participants having a LHC (where 1542) or the number of participants having a LDCT scan (where 1145).

References

    1. Crosbie PA, et al. Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Thorax. 2018;4:55–59. - PubMed
    1. Quaife SL, 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. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2316-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ghimire B, et al. Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme. Lung Cancer. 2019;134:66–71. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.05.026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crosbie PA, et al. Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e037075. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037075. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Koning HJ, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;382:503–513. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types