Skip to main content
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
editorial
. 2020 Nov 27;70(701):572–573. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X713537

Early diagnosis of lung cancer in people most at risk

Frank M Sullivan 1, Mara van Beusekom 2
PMCID: PMC7707045  PMID: 33243902

THE PROBLEM

The current approach to the diagnosis of lung cancer is ineffective. By the time typical symptoms are apparent, the disease has usually spread beyond the primary site.1 As a result, 80% of the 48 000 people a year who develop lung cancer in the UK have a poor prognosis, with fewer than 10% surviving for 10 years or more.2 People over the age of 50 years, smokers, and those living in areas of socioeconomic deprivation are affected disproportionately.2 Late diagnosis and higher levels of multimorbidity in these areas constitute another example of the Inverse Care Law.3 Earlier diagnosis is likely to enable more patients to benefit from recent advances in surgery, pharmacological interventions, and radiotherapy.4

LUNG CANCER SCREENING

The 2011 National Lung Screening trial in the US achieved a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths in smokers aged over 55 years after 5 years using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening.5 Successes with LDCT screening have been confirmed and extended by several other trials, including the recently reported NELSON study.6 Following the UK Lung Cancer Study (UKLS), NHS England has commissioned pilots of lung health checks including LDCT.7 In this approach to early diagnosis, smokers and ex-smokers older than 55 years prior to LDCT scanning are sent a validated questionnaire: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012 (questionnaire reference: PCLOm2012).Although the US Preventive Task Force recommends annual screening with LDCT in adults aged 50–80 years,8 who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit smoking within the past 15 years, the UK Screening Committee does not yet recommend lung cancer screening.

Targeting high-risk groups is likely to be preferable to population-wide screening for lung cancer as this will reduce the burden on imaging capacity, and avoid over-investigation of false-positive findings and the corresponding overdiagnosis and patient anxiety.

Optimising uptake among these high-risk groups will be another key factor for success. Addressing public awareness, acceptability, and ease of access to enhance uptake of cancer screening requires a comprehensive approach. In any proposal, collaborative (co-design) service design strategies need to be explored.9 These would encourage early involvement of GP practices, including access to their electronic health records to identify smokers and their links to hard-to-reach communities, phlebotomy services, pharmacies, and public end-users.

Two ways of achieving better targeting may be more accurate identification of patients at risk by optimising algorithms to extract data from the GP electronic health records and biomarkers, such as C-reactive protein, circulating tumour-derived material, and autoantibody tests.10 The Early detection of Cancer of the Lung Scotland (ECLS) trial of an autoantibody test reported relatively high uptake among people from more deprived groups and reduced late-stage disease in the intervention arm.11

ROLE OF THE GP IN ADVANCING EARLIER DIAGNOSIS

Greater understanding is needed on how different combinations of electronic medical record searches, surveys, and biomarkers compare, both in terms of accuracy and uptake. Addressing ease of access (for example, via postal delivery or systematic or opportunistic visits) to enhance uptake of lung cancer screening, including public awareness, acceptability, endorsements, and reminders, is required.

Studies being designed and implemented now will provide data and analysis that should enable the UK screening committee to decide whether these new approaches are a useful way to target lung cancer screening in future. GP input addressing clinical and economic factors in a collaborative, integrated approach will be key to developing new studies that increase our patients’ chances of successful treatment of early lung cancers and mitigate health inequalities.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

Frank M Sullivan is the principal investigator of a study funded by the manufacturers of an autoantibody test (Oncimmune). Both authors are investigators on two studies of lung cancer screening funded by the Chief Scientist Office Scotland.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Hamilton W, Peters TJ, Round A, Sharp D. What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study. Thorax. 2005;60(12):1059–1065. doi: 10.1136/thx.2005.045880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.UK Cancer Research Lung cancer statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer (accessed 3 Nov 2020).
  • 3.Watt G. The inverse care law revisited: a continuing blot on the record of the National Health Service. Br J Gen Pract. 2018 doi: 10.3399/bjgp18X699893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 4.Howlader N, Forjaz G, Mooradian MJ, et al. The effect of advances in lung-cancer treatment on population mortality. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(7):640–649. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.National Lung Screening Trial Research Team Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503–513. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Field JK, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, et al. The UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of low-dose computed tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(40):1–146. doi: 10.3310/hta20400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.US Preventive Services Task Force . Draft evidence review. Lung cancer: screening. USPSTF; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Weller D, Vedsted P, Rubin G, et al. The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(7):1262–1267. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Atkinson MD, Kennedy JI, John A, et al. DEMISTIFY Research Group. Development of an algorithm for determining smoking status and behaviour over the life course from UK electronic primary care records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0400-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sullivan FM, Mair FS, Anderson W, et al. Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) Team. Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging. Eur Respir J. 2020 doi: 10.1183/13993003.00670-2020.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES