Virtual Library

Start Your Search

Katie Morris



Author of

  • +

    MA10 - Emerging Technologies for Lung Cancer Detection (ID 129)

    • Event: WCLC 2019
    • Type: Mini Oral Session
    • Track: Screening and Early Detection
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      MA10.10 - Uptake in Lung Cancer Screening – Does CT Location Matter? A Pilot Study Comparison of a Mobile and Hospital Based CT Scanner (Now Available) (ID 2165)

      15:15 - 16:45  |  Author(s): Katie Morris

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background

      Community based lung cancer screening has been proposed as a method of increasing uptake for lung cancer screening by reducing barriers to participation. We report baseline statistics for a lung cancer screening pilot study in which patients were scanned on either a community based mobile CT unit or on a University Hospital based fixed-site CT scanner.

      Method

      Ever smokers aged 60-75 registered at 17 participating general practitioner practices (GP) in West London were invited for a lung health check at either a mobile unit situated in a supermarket car park or in a hospital site. The location offered was based upon proximity to the participant’s home address. On attendance a lung health check, assessing lung cancer risk, was undertaken. Participants with a LLPv2 score of ≥2.0% and/or PLCOM2012 score of ≥1.51% were offered a same day low dose CT (LDCT) scan. Uptake, attendance and non-attendance (DNA) rates were compared using Chi-squared (χ2) test.

      Result

      8366 potentially eligible participants were invited for a lung health check appointment; 5135 (61.4%) to the hospital site, and 3231 (38.6%) to the mobile site. 1749/8366 (20.9%) participants responded (males n=954/1749 (54.5%)). 1047/5135 (20.4%) were booked an appointment at the hospital site and 702/3231 (21.7%) at the mobile site (p=0.14). No difference was observed in lung cancer risk between participants at the two sites. Patients at the mobile site were more likely to be ex-smokers (p=0.048). The DNA rate at the hospital site was 96/1047 (9.2%) and at the mobile site was 48/702 (6.8%) (p=0.08). On attendance, 63 patients were ineligible for screening; 52/1749 (3.0%) did not meet the entry criteria and 11/1749 (0.6%) were acutely unwell. Therefore 1542 patients attended and had a risk score calculated and of these 1145/1542 (74.3%) underwent CT. Median [range] risk scores for scanned patients were 1.97 [0-25.34] for PLCOM2012 and 4.71 [0.94-35.92] for LLPv2. Lung cancer was confirmed in 17/1145 (1.5%) participants at baseline. A further 151/1145 (13.2%) participants will undergo interval CT for indeterminate nodules.

      Conclusion

      There was a small but non-significant increase in participant response rates for the community based mobile site compared to the hospital site CT scanner, but no difference in DNA rates. While community based mobile scanners may provide valuable additional capacity to lung screening programmes, the magnitude of any benefit to participant uptake needs to be balanced against the additional complexity of setting up these stand-alone facilities. Further work is ongoing to understand the interaction between CT location and other factors that influence recruitment, with a view to using effective methods to increase uptake at all sites for future screening invitations.

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.