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%, PLCO 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.

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.

IEFs are common, requiring further investigation in a substantial minority. The incidence of highly significant findings in this study was low (∼1%), and similar to the reported incidence in the computed tomography literature. No significant difference was found between the reporting rates of IEFs between different specialties.

No abstract

BackgroundCOPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in populations eligible for lung cancer screening. We investigated the role of spirometry in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.MethodsEver smokers, age 55–74, resident in three deprived areas of Manchester were invited to a ‘Lung Health Check’ (LHC) based in convenient community locations. Spirometry was incorporated into the LHCs alongside lung cancer risk estimation (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Study Risk Prediction Model, 2012 version (PLCOM2012)), symptom assessment and smoking cessation advice. Those at high risk of lung cancer (PLCOM2012 ≥1.51%) were eligible for annual low-dose CT screening over two screening rounds. Airflow obstruction was defined as FEV1/FVC<0.7. Primary care databases were searched for any prior diagnosis of COPD.Results99.4% (n=2525) of LHC attendees successfully performed spirometry; mean age was 64.1±5.5, 51% were women, 35% were current smokers. 37.4% (n=944) had airflow obstruction of which 49.7% (n=469) had no previous diagnosis of COPD. 53.3% of those without a prior diagnosis were symptomatic (n=250/469). After multivariate analysis, the detection of airflow obstruction without a prior COPD diagnosis was associated with male sex (adjOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.47; p<0.0001), younger age (p=0.015), lower smoking duration (p<0.0001), fewer cigarettes per day (p=0.035), higher FEV1/FVC ratio (<0.0001) and being asymptomatic (adjOR 4.19, 95% CI 2.95 to 5.95; p<0.0001). The likelihood of screen detected lung cancer was significantly greater in those with evidence of airflow obstruction who had a previous diagnosis of COPD (adjOR 2.80, 95% CI 1.60 to 8.42; p=0.002).ConclusionsIncorporating spirometry into a community-based targeted lung cancer screening programme is feasible and identifies a significant number of individuals with airflow obstruction who do not have a prior diagnosis of COPD.

IntroductionLow-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk smokers reduces lung cancer (LC) specific mortality. Determining screening eligibility using individualised risk may improve screening effectiveness and reduce harm. Here, we compare the performance of two risk prediction models (PLCOM2012 and Liverpool Lung Project model (LLPv2)) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria in a community-based screening programme.MethodsEver-smokers aged 55–74, from deprived areas of Manchester, were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC). Individuals at higher risk (PLCOM2012 score ≥1.51%) were offered annual LDCT screening over two rounds. LLPv2 score was calculated but not used for screening selection; ≥2.5% and ≥5% thresholds were used for analysis.ResultsPLCOM2012 ≥1.51% selected 56% (n=1429) of LHC attendees for screening. LLPv2 ≥2.5% also selected 56% (n=1430) whereas NLST (47%, n=1188) and LLPv2 ≥5% (33%, n=826) selected fewer. Over two screening rounds 62 individuals were diagnosed with LC; representing 87% (n=62/71) of 6-year incidence predicted by mean PLCOM2012 score (5.0%). 26% (n=16/62) of individuals with LC were not eligible for screening using LLPv2 ≥5%, 18% (n=11/62) with NLST criteria and 7% (n=5/62) with LLPv2 ≥2.5%. NLST eligible Manchester attendees had 2.5 times the LC detection rate than NLST participants after two annual screens (≈4.3% (n=51/1188) vs 1.7% (n=438/26 309); p<0.0001). Adverse measures of health, including airflow obstruction, respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular disease, were positively correlated with LC risk. Coronary artery calcification was predictive of LC (adjOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.64; p=0.028).ConclusionProspective comparisons of risk prediction tools are required to optimise screening selection in different settings. The PLCOM2012 model may underestimate risk in deprived UK populations; further research focused on model calibration is required.

No abstract

Patients with acute asthma often demonstrate impaired clearance of secretions from large and small airways. However, chest physical therapy is not generally recommended for acute asthma. Flutter VRP1 is a hand-held device approved by the Federal Drug Administration in the United States for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to promote mucus clearance. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the addition of chest physical therapy such as the Flutter VRP1 device has any effect on pediatric patients hospitalized with acute asthma in an open label, prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial. Forty-five children between 6 and 16 years of age who were admitted to a tertiary care children's hospital in a large metropolitan area with uncomplicated acute asthma were enrolled in the study. Of these, 20 were randomized to receive the Flutter treatment in addition to the standard therapy for acute asthma upon hospitalization and compared with 20 who receive just the standard therapy. The standard treatment included systemic steroids (methyl-prednisolone 2 mg/kg per dose every 6 hours) and aerosolized albuterol treatments every 2-4 hours. Spirometry and an asthma clinical score were measured every day. The group receiving Flutter therapy had more severe disease as demonstrated by their asthma score and increased need for supplemental oxygen (p , 0.01 and 0.05, respectively). There was a significant increase in FVC and FEV 1 by those who received Flutter treatment on the first and second hospital day (p , 0.05) compared with those who received the standard treatment. Although FEF 25-75% at the time of discharge was higher in the Flutter treatment group, it was not statistically significant (p 5 0.08) and there was no significant difference in length of hospital stay (p 5 0.3). However, there was not enough power to statistically show a difference in the latter. Therefore, institution of chest physical therapy such as Flutter therapy was not detrimental and may instead be beneficial in hospitalized children with acute asthma. (Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 2003;16[4]: 295-303.) 295