Author(s): Ledson M.; Gaynor E.; Grundy S.; Hill S.; Fidoe D.; Mason S.; Field J.; Duffy S.
Source: Journal of Thoracic Oncology; Oct 2018; vol. 13 (no. 10)
Publication Date: Oct 2018
Publication Type(s): Conference Abstract
Abstract:Background: The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme (LHLP) is an initiative aimed at improving respiratory health and diagnosing respiratory disease at a more treatable stage, taken by the Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) working with communities across Liverpool. Liverpool has one of the highest respiratory morbidity rates in England, with double the national lung cancer incidence, particularly in lower socioeconomic groups. The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme was initiated in response to both the clinical problem and the health inequality. Method: General practice records targeted ever-smokers and subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 58-70y and were invited for 45-minute lung health check. Positive lifestyle messages were promoted; 5-year personal lung cancer risk calculated (www.MyLungRisk.org using LLPv2 risk model). Those who trigger the 5% threshold were offered a LDCT-scan. Spirometry was used to assess lung function (FEV1/FVC); those with abnormal results referred for potentially definitive diagnosis of COPD. Smoking advice and referrals to smoking cessation clinics were provided. Patients CT detected nodules were managed, based on BTS guidelines; referred to MDT for work-up and significant other findings (SoF) were analysed in detail. Result: 3,591 Healthy Lung Programme consultations (consented). 11,526 people were invited, 4,566 (40%) attended. 1,853 (52%) were male, 2,897 (81%) in the most deprived IMD quintile. 832 (23%) subjects had an existing diagnosis of COPD and 527 (15%) had a previous diagnosis of cancer. 1,173 (33%) subjects had a family history of cancer. 1,548 (99.3% meeting LLPv2 5% risk criterion) were offered CT scan. 119 (9%) patients required further investigations (follow-up CT scan at 3 or 12 months, or immediate MDT referral), 25 (1.9% undergoing CT scan) were diagnosed with lung cancer (11 have suspected lung cancer, undergoing further investigations). Analysis of a sub-set of the SoF findings were followed up and indicated benefit to participants. Conclusion: The results suggest that it is feasible to achieve similar clinical outcome benefits to those observed in the US trial of LDCT screening for lung cancer, with lesser harms in terms of unnecessary diagnostic activity. However, this needs confirmation with extended follow-up, larger numbers of lung cancers diagnosed, and the addition of mortality data. Additional randomised trial results would also add to the precision of estimation of benefits and harms, in particular mortality results from the large European trial, NELSON. In the meantime, the results of LHLP suggest that it is succeeding in early detection of both COPD and lung cancer. Keywords: Implementation in primary care, CT screening, Risk stratification in CT screening
Copyright © 2018