Prospective evaluation of lung cancer screening eligibility criteria and lung cancer detection in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

Rhian Gabe, Philip A J Crosbie, Daniel Vulkan, Hannah Bailey, David R Baldwin, Claire Bradley, Richard Booton, Michael Darby, Claire Eckert, Neil Hancock, Sebastian Hinde, Sam M Janes, Martyn P T Kennedy, Catriona Marshall, Henrik Moller, Rachael L Murray, Richard D Neal, Samantha L Quaife, Suzanne Rogerson, Bethany ShinkinsIrene Simmonds, Sara Upperton, Matthew E J Callister

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Low dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer reduces lung cancer mortality, but there is a lack of international consensus regarding the optimal eligibility criteria for screening. The Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) was designed to evaluate lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation and a primary objective was prospective evaluation of 3 pre-defined eligibility criteria.

METHODS: Individuals who had ever smoked, aged 55-80yrs, who responded to written invitation, underwent telephone risk assessment and if eligible by at least one criteria (PLCO M2012≥1.51%, LLP v2≥5%, USPSTF 2013) were offered biennial LDCT screening.

RESULTS: Of 44,957 individuals invited, 22,814 responded and underwent eligibility assessment, of whom a total of 7,826 were eligible according to any of the three LCS criteria. Comparing PLCO M2012≥1.51%, LLP v2≥5%, and USPSTF 2013, the proportions of responders eligible for screening were 28.0%, 20.5% and 18.9% respectively (p<0.0001 for each comparison), and the proportion of all cancers detected 91.1%, 77.0%, and 62.8% respectively (p≤0.0002 for each comparison). When risk thresholds were selected to result in equivalent numbers of people eligible for screening, cancer detection proportions were higher for PLCO M2012 (74.5%) and LLP v2 (71.3%) than USPSTF 2013 (62.8%) (p=0.0002 and p=0.032 respectively) but there was no significant difference between the two risk models. Reducing the LLPv2 risk threshold from 5% to 2.5% (as currently used in the English lung cancer screening programme) and reducing the pack-year requirement for the USPSTF2021 vs the USPSTF2013 criteria increased the numbers eligible for screening, but subsequent cancer yield was not measured in this study.

CONCLUSION: The PLCO M2012≥1.51% criteria identified more people eligible for screening in YLST and resulted in more screen-detected lung cancers than LLP v2≥5% or USPSTF 2013. When compared in equivalent populations, there was no significant difference between risk models in terms of lung cancer detection and each appeared more efficient at screening population selection than USPSTF 2013.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Thoracic Oncology
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 16 Dec 2024

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Cite this