Adherence to community-based lung cancer screening in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

被引:0
|
作者
Ahmad, Sarah Q. [1 ]
Pesola, Francesca [2 ]
Crosbie, Philip A. J. [3 ]
Gabe, Rhian [2 ]
Hancock, Neil [4 ]
Kennedy, Martyn P. T. [1 ]
Marshall, Catriona [4 ]
Quaife, Samantha L. [5 ]
Rogerson, Suzanne [6 ]
Simmonds, Irene [4 ]
Callister, Matthew E. J. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Dept Resp Med, Leeds, England
[2] Queen Mary Univ London, Wolfson Inst Populat Hlth, Ctr Evaluat & Methods, London, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Fac Biol Med & Hlth, Div Immunol Immun Infect & Resp Med, Manchester, England
[4] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Hlth Sci, Leeds, England
[5] Queen Mary Univ London, Wolfson Inst Populat Hlth, Ctr Prevent Detect & Diag, London, England
[6] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Dept Res & Innovat, Leeds, England
关键词
Low dose computed tomography screening; Lung cancer screening; Adherence;
D O I
10.1016/j.lungcan.2025.108086
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Lung cancer screening saves lives by detecting cancers early, but continued adherence to screening rounds is required for participants to experience the maximum clinical benefit. Here we describe factors associated with screening adherence in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Methods: All eligible individuals following baseline (prevalent) screening were invited for a biennial incident screen in a community setting. Participants were contacted by phone (up to two attempts) to arrange an appointment or sent a pre-arranged appointment letter if non-contactable. Characteristics of attenders versus non-attenders were compared using univariate and multivariable models. Results: Of 6,650 individuals who attended baseline screening, 5,975 were eligible for the second round. The mean age of those eligible was 70.5 years, 45.2 % were female, 31.7 % were from the most socio-economically deprived quintile and 33.9 % reported current smoking at the time of the baseline scan. Of these, 5,184 (86.8 %) attended their second screen and 791 (13.2 %) did not. Factors associated with lower attendance following multivariable analysis were socio-economic deprivation (OR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.60-1.02, most versus least deprived quintile) and current smoking (OR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.48-0.66, current versus previously quit). Sex, age, and ethnicity were not associated with attendance. Attendance was more likely in people who had an indeterminate (OR 2.10, 95 % CI 1.61-2.73; n = 871) or positive (OR 3.16, 95 % CI 0.98-10.19; n = 60) baseline scan compared to a negative baseline scan. Discussion: Adherence was good overall but lower adherence amongst people who currently smoke and those from deprived populations is a concern due to their greater risk of lung cancer death. Further research is needed into interventions that increase adherence in these high-risk populations.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The radiology quality assurance process in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, and findings from the baseline round of low dose CT screening for lung cancer
    Upperton, Sara E. C.
    Bradley, Claire
    Bhartia, Bobby S. K.
    Crosbie, Philip A. J.
    Darby, Michael
    Gabe, Rhian
    Hammond, Christopher
    Hancock, Neil
    Marshall, Catriona
    Kennedy, Martyn P. T.
    Callister, Matthew
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 96 (1151):
  • [42] Reply: Early Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening
    Triplette, Matthew
    Crothers, Kristina
    ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, 2021, 18 (04) : 734 - 734
  • [43] Examining the effects of false positive lung cancer screening results on subsequent lung cancer screening adherence
    Ford, ME
    Havstad, SL
    Flickinger, L
    Johnson, CC
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2003, 12 (01) : 28 - 33
  • [44] Variation in Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in a Hybrid Lung Cancer Screening Program: Centralization Is Key to Improvement
    Angotti, J. M.
    Frazier, C.
    Tanner, N. T.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2020, 201
  • [45] Lung Cancer Screening in the Community Setting
    Cattaneo, Stephen M., II
    Meisenberg, Barry R.
    Geronimo, Maria C. M.
    Bhandari, Bishal
    Maxted, John W.
    Brady-Copertino, Catherine J.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2018, 105 (06): : 1627 - 1632
  • [46] Results of Lung Cancer Screening in the Community
    Handy, John R., Jr.
    Skokan, Michael
    Rauch, Erika
    Zinck, Steven
    Sanborn, Rachel E.
    Kotova, Svetlana
    Wang, Mansen
    ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2020, 18 (03) : 243 - 249
  • [47] Interstitial lung diseases in a lung cancer screening trial
    Sverzellati, N.
    Guerci, L.
    Randi, G.
    Calabro, E.
    La Vecchia, C.
    Marchiano, A.
    Pesci, A.
    Zompatori, M.
    Pastorino, U.
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2011, 38 (02) : 392 - 400
  • [48] Impact of frailty and comorbidity on initial response to lung cancer screening invitation and low-dose CT screening uptake: Findings from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial
    Almatrafi, Anas
    Gabe, Rhian
    Beeken, Rebecca J.
    Neal, Richard D.
    Clegg, Andrew
    Best, Kate E.
    Relton, Samuel
    Brown, Martel
    Tam, Hui Zhen
    Hancock, Neil
    Crosbie, Philip A. J.
    Callister, Matthew E. J.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2025,
  • [49] Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Community-Based Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
    Carter-Harris, Lisa
    Comer, Robert Skipworth
    Slaven, James E., II
    Monahan, Patrick O.
    Vode, Emilee
    Hanna, Nasser H.
    Ceppa, DuyKhanh Pham
    Rawl, Susan M.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2020, 22 (11)
  • [50] Overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening: Estimates from the German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial
    Gonzalez Maldonado, Sandra
    Motsch, Erna
    Trotter, Anke
    Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich
    Heussel, Claus-Peter
    Hermann, Silke
    Zeissig, Sylke Ruth
    Delorme, Stefan
    Kaaks, Rudolf
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2021, 148 (05) : 1097 - 1105