BackgroundLung cancer screening using low-dose CT (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% in the National Lung Screening Trial.MethodsThe pilot UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) is a randomised controlled trial of LDCT screening for lung cancer versus usual care. A population-based questionnaire was used to identify high-risk individuals. CT screen-detected nodules were managed by a pre-specified protocol. Cost effectiveness was modelled with reference to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial mortality reduction.Results247 354 individuals aged 50–75 years were approached; 30.7% expressed an interest, 8729 (11.5%) were eligible and 4055 were randomised, 2028 into the CT arm (1994 underwent a CT). Forty-two participants (2.1%) had confirmed lung cancer, 34 (1.7%) at baseline and 8 (0.4%) at the 12-month scan. 28/42 (66.7%) had stage I disease, 36/42 (85.7%) had stage I or II disease. 35/42 (83.3%) had surgical resection. 536 subjects had nodules greater than 50 mm3 or 5 mm diameter and 41/536 were found to have lung cancer. One further cancer was detected by follow-up of nodules between 15 and 50 mm3 at 12 months. The baseline estimate for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of once-only CT screening, under the UKLS protocol, was £8466 per quality adjusted life year gained (CI £5542 to £12 569).ConclusionsThe UKLS pilot trial demonstrated that it is possible to detect lung cancer at an early stage and deliver potentially curative treatment in over 80% of cases. Health economic analysis suggests that the intervention would be cost effective—this needs to be confirmed using data on observed lung cancer mortality reduction.Trial registrationISRCTN 78513845.

BackgroundLung cancer kills more people than any other cancer in the UK (5-year survival < 13%). Early diagnosis can save lives. The USA-based National Lung Cancer Screening Trial reported a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% all-cause mortality in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-screened subjects.ObjectivesTo (1) analyse LDCT lung cancer screening in a high-risk UK population, determine optimum recruitment, screening, reading and care pathway strategies; and (2) assess the psychological consequences and the health-economic implications of screening.DesignA pilot randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care. A population-based risk questionnaire identified individuals who were at high risk of developing lung cancer (≥ 5% over 5 years).SettingThoracic centres with expertise in lung cancer imaging, respiratory medicine, pathology and surgery: Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Merseyside, and Papworth Hospital, Cambridgeshire.ParticipantsIndividuals aged 50–75 years, at high risk of lung cancer, in the primary care trusts adjacent to the centres.InterventionsA thoracic LDCT scan. Follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans as per protocol. Referral to multidisciplinary team clinics was determined by nodule size criteria.Main outcome measuresPopulation-based recruitment based on risk stratification; management of the trial through web-based database; optimal characteristics of CT scan readers (radiologists vs. radiographers); characterisation of CT-detected nodules utilising volumetric analysis; prevalence of lung cancer at baseline; sociodemographic factors affecting participation; psychosocial measures (cancer distress, anxiety, depression, decision satisfaction); and cost-effectiveness modelling.ResultsA total of 247,354 individuals were approached to take part in the trial; 30.7% responded positively to the screening invitation. Recruitment of participants resulted in 2028 in the CT arm and 2027 in the control arm. A total of 1994 participants underwent CT scanning: 42 participants (2.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer; 36 out of 42 (85.7%) of the screen-detected cancers were identified as stage 1 or 2, and 35 (83.3%) underwent surgical resection as their primary treatment. Lung cancer was more common in the lowest socioeconomic group. Short-term adverse psychosocial consequences were observed in participants who were randomised to the intervention arm and in those who had a major lung abnormality detected, but these differences were modest and temporary. Rollout of screening as a service or design of a full trial would need to address issues of outreach. The health-economic analysis suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective but this needs to be confirmed using data on actual lung cancer mortality.ConclusionsThe UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot was successfully undertaken with 4055 randomised individuals. The data from the UKLS provide evidence that adds to existing data to suggest that lung cancer screening in the UK could potentially be implemented in the 60–75 years age group, selected via the Liverpool Lung Project risk model version 2 and using CT volumetry-based management protocols.Future workThe UKLS data will be pooled with the NELSON (Nederlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek: Dutch–Belgian Randomised Lung Cancer Screening Trial) and other European Union trials in 2017 which will provide European mortality and cost-effectiveness data. For now, there is a clear need for mortality results from other trials and further research to identify optimal methods of implementation and delivery. Strategies for increasing uptake and providing support for underserved groups will be key to implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN78513845.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The UK Lung Cancer Screening trial (UKLS) aims to evaluate low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer population screening in the United Kingdom. In UKLS, a large population sample ages 50 to 75 years is approached with a questionnaire to determine lung cancer risk. Those with an estimated risk of at least 5% of developing lung cancer in the next 5 years (using the Liverpool Lung project risk model) are invited to participate in the trial. Here, we present demographic, risk, and response rate data from the first 88,897 individuals approached. Of note, 23,794 individuals (26.8% of all approached) responded positively to the initial questionnaire; 12% of these were high risk. Higher socioeconomic status correlated positively with response, but inversely with risk (P < 0.001). The 50-to 55-year age group was least likely to participate, and at lowest cancer risk. Only 5% of clinic attendees were ages 60 years (compared with 47% of all 88,897 approached); this has implications for cost effectiveness. Among positive responders, there were more ex-smokers than expected from population figures (40% vs. 33%), and fewer current smokers (14% vs. 17.5%). Of note, 32.7% of current smokers and 18.4% of ex-smokers were designated as high risk. Overall, 1,452 of 23,794 positive responders (6.1%) were deemed high risk and attended a recruitment clinic. UKLS is the first LDCT population screening trial, selecting high-risk subjects using a validated individual risk prediction model. Key findings: (i) better recruitment from ex-rather than current smokers, (ii) few clinic attendees ages early 50s, and (iii) representative number of socioeconomically deprived people recruited, despite lower response rates. Cancer Prev Res; 7(3); 362-71. Ó2014 AACR.

No abstract

Young healthy nonsmokers with no recognizable lung disease can also show a small proportion of emphysematous-like changes on CT densitovolumetry when a threshold of -950 HU is used. Reference values should be considered when applying the technique for early detection or grading of emphysema and when studying aging lungs.

Recent years have seen the development of mobile CT units, designed for use in operating theatres, intensive care units and accident and emergency departments. One such unit is the Tomoscan M (Philips, Utrecht, The Netherlands). It operates with a maximum tube voltage of 130 kV, and a maximum tube current of only 50 mA. This study tested whether acceptable quality CT images of the brain could be produced on the mobile unit with these parameters. 44 consecutive normal head examinations performed on the mobile scanner were compared with 35 examinations from two conventional CT units. Two independent readers scored the examinations for noise and artefact. CT dose index (CTDI) values for the three CT units were obtained in free air as an estimate of patient dose. Differences in artefact score between CT units were generally small, but noise scores were worse when using the Tomoscan M with a 2 s slice time. The lowest CTDI values were obtained with the Somatom DRH (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) unit and the highest with the SR 7000 (Philips, Utrecht, The Netherlands), with values from Tomoscan M, in all except one case, falling between these values for the protocols used in the study. The measured scattered radiation doses from the Tomoscan M are presented.

The objective of this study was to describe the use of CT volume quantification assessment of candidates for LLDLT. Six pediatric candidates for LDLLT and their donors were investigated with helical chest CT, as part of the preoperative assessment. The CT images were analyzed as per routine and additional post-processing with CT volume quantification (CT densitovolumetry) was performed to assess volume matching between the lower lobes of the donors and respective lungs of the receptors. CT images were segmented by density and region of interest, using post-processing software. Size matching was also assessed using the FVC formula. Compatible volumes were found in three cases. The other three cases were considered incompatible. All three recipients with compatible sizes survived the procedure and are alive and well. One patient with incompatible size was submitted to the procedure and died because of complications attributed to the incompatible volumes. One patient with incompatible size has subsequently grown and new measurements are to be taken to check the current volumes. Different donors are being sought for the remaining patient whose lung volumes were considered too big for the prospective transplant donor lobes. Under FVC formula criteria, all cases were considered compatible. CT volume quantification is an easy to perform, non-invasive technique that uses CT images for the preassessment of candidates for LDLLT, to compare the volume of the lower lobes from the donors with volume of each lung in the prospective recipients. Size matching based on CT densitovolumetry and FVC may differ.

ObjectivesTo compare radiologists’ performance reading CTs independently with their performance using radiographers as concurrent readers in lung cancer screening.Methods369 consecutive baseline CTs performed for the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial were double-read by radiologists reading either independently or concurrently with a radiographer. In concurrent reading, the radiologist reviewed radiographer-identified nodules and then detected any additional nodules. Radiologists recorded their independent and concurrent reading times. For each radiologist, sensitivity, average false-positive detections (FPs) per case and mean reading times for each method were calculated.Results694 nodules in 246/369 (66.7%) studies comprised the reference standard. Radiologists’ mean sensitivity and average FPs per case both increased with concurrent reading compared to independent reading (90.8 ± 5.6% vs. 77.5 ± 11.2%, and 0.60 ± 0.53 vs. 0.33 ± 0.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for 3/4 and 2/4 radiologists, respectively). The mean reading times per case decreased from 9.1 ± 2.3 min with independent reading to 7.2 ± 1.0 min with concurrent reading, decreasing significantly for 3/4 radiologists (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe majority of radiologists demonstrated improved sensitivity, a small increase in FP detections and a statistically significantly reduced reading time using radiographers as concurrent readers.Key Points• Radiographers as concurrent readers could improve radiologists’ sensitivity in lung nodule detection. • An increase in false-positive detections with radiographer-assisted concurrent reading occurred. • The false-positive detection rate was still lower than reported for computer-aided detection. • Concurrent reading with radiographers was also faster than single reading. • The time saved per case using concurrently reading radiographers was relatively modest. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4903-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.