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

Introduction Lung cancer is the world’s leading cause of cancer death. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% in the US National Lung Screening Trial. Here, we present the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), which will address key questions of relevance for screening implementation. Methods and analysis Using a single-consent Zelen’s design, ever-smokers aged 55–80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds will be randomised (1:1) to invitation to a telephone-based risk-assessment for a Lung Health Check or to usual care. The anticipated number randomised by household is 62 980 individuals. Responders at high risk will be invited for LDCT scanning for lung cancer on a mobile van in the community. There will be two rounds of screening at an interval of 2 years. Primary objectives are (1) measure participation rates, (2) compare the performance of PLCOM2012 (threshold ≥1.51%), Liverpool Lung Project (V.2) (threshold ≥5%) and US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for screening population selection and (3) assess lung cancer outcomes in the intervention and usual care arms. Secondary evaluations include health economics, quality of life, smoking rates according to intervention arm, screening programme performance with ancillary biomarker and smoking cessation studies. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Greater Manchester West research ethics committee (18-NW-0012) and the Health Research Authority following review by the Confidentiality Advisory Group. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and on the YLST website. Trial registration numbers ISRCTN42704678 and NCT03750110.

[1]  S. Parrott,et al.  Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme , 2020, BMJ Open.

[2]  Harry J de Koning,et al.  Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  A. Bhowmik,et al.  Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomised Controlled Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials. , 2019, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[4]  Summer S. Han,et al.  A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies , 2019, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  R. Booton,et al.  Attendees of Manchester’s Lung Health Check pilot express a preference for community-based lung cancer screening , 2019, Thorax.

[6]  K. Rodger,et al.  The proportion of lung cancer patients attending UK lung cancer clinics who would have been eligible for low-dose CT screening , 2019, European Respiratory Journal.

[7]  G. Corrao,et al.  Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy , 2019, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[8]  R. Booton,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of the Manchester 'lung health checks', a community-based lung cancer low-dose CT screening pilot. , 2018, Lung cancer.

[9]  R. Booton,et al.  Second round results from the Manchester ‘Lung Health Check’ community-based targeted lung cancer screening pilot , 2018, Thorax.

[10]  C. Hyde,et al.  Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2018, Health technology assessment.

[11]  J. Kleijnen,et al.  Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2018, Health technology assessment.

[12]  M. Rutter,et al.  Metformin in non-diabetic hyperglycaemia: the GLINT feasibility RCT. , 2018, Health technology assessment.

[13]  R. Booton,et al.  Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot in deprived areas of Manchester , 2018, Thorax.

[14]  S. Duffy,et al.  Impact of low-dose CT screening on smoking cessation among high-risk participants in the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial , 2017, Thorax.

[15]  David Moher,et al.  CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts. , 2017, Annals of internal medicine.

[16]  J. Wardle,et al.  Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication , 2016, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[17]  J. Wardle,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 , 2016, BMC Cancer.

[18]  S. Duffy,et al.  CT screening for lung cancer: Is the evidence strong enough? , 2016, Lung cancer.

[19]  N J Wald,et al.  UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening , 2015, Thorax.

[20]  M. Callister,et al.  British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. , 2015 .

[21]  S. Duffy,et al.  Barriers to uptake among high-risk individuals declining participation in lung cancer screening: a mixed methods analysis of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial , 2015, BMJ Open.

[22]  M. Prokop,et al.  British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules: accredited by NICE , 2015, Thorax.

[23]  Timothy R. Church,et al.  Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Risks at Which to Screen Ever- and Never-Smokers: Screening Rules Applied to the PLCO and NLST Cohorts , 2014, PLoS medicine.

[24]  William Hazelton,et al.  Benefits and Harms of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Strategies: A Comparative Modeling Study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  V. Moyer Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  A. Dirksen,et al.  Smoking habits in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with low-dose CT: final results after a 5-year screening programme , 2014, Thorax.

[27]  Rongwei Fu,et al.  Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[28]  S. Lam,et al.  Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  C. Berg,et al.  Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Characteristics of lung cancers detected by computer tomography screening in the randomized NELSON trial. , 2013, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[31]  Timothy R Church,et al.  Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  C. Berg,et al.  Applying the National Lung Screening Trial eligibility criteria to the US population: what percent of the population and of incident lung cancers would be covered? , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

[33]  Randy W. Elder,et al.  Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. , 2012, American journal of preventive medicine.

[34]  Emma Bradley,et al.  The distribution of lung cancer across sectors of society in the United Kingdom: a study using national primary care data , 2011, BMC public health.

[35]  D. Mant,et al.  Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[36]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening , 2012 .

[37]  C. von Wagner,et al.  Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. , 2011, International journal of epidemiology.

[38]  R. Steele,et al.  Pre-notification Increases Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening in All Demographic Groups: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2011, Journal of medical screening.

[39]  R. V. van Klaveren,et al.  Lung cancer screening and smoking abstinence: 2 year follow-up data from the Dutch–Belgian randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial , 2010, Thorax.

[40]  Shari Bolen,et al.  Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: A systematic review , 2008, Cancer.

[41]  S R Cole,et al.  An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening , 2007, Journal of medical screening.

[42]  C. Gross,et al.  The impact of socioeconomic status and race on trial participation for older women with breast cancer , 2005, Cancer.

[43]  S. Cole,et al.  Participation in screening for colorectal cancer based on a faecal occult blood test is improved by endorsement by the primary care practitioner , 2002, Journal of medical screening.

[44]  Roshan Bastani,et al.  A randomized clinical trial to assess the benefit of offering on-site mobile mammography in addition to health education for older women. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[45]  M. Christian,et al.  How sociodemographics, presence of oncology specialists, and hospital cancer programs affect accrual to cancer treatment trials. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[46]  C. Forbes,et al.  Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. , 2021, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[47]  J. Wardle,et al.  Predictors of attendance in the United Kingdom flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial , 2000, Journal of medical screening.

[48]  N Segnan,et al.  Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[49]  J. Ware,et al.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. , 1996, Medical care.

[50]  A. Williams EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[51]  A. Kasuya EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. , 1990, Health policy.

[52]  M. Zelen A new design for randomized clinical trials. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.