Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35487105›Full record

Observational studyLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022

The reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a lung cancer screening setting.

Jennifer L Dickson, Amyn Bhamani, Samantha L Quaife, Carolyn Horst, Sophie Tisi, Helen Hall, Priyam Verghese, Andrew Creamer, Ruth Prendecki, John McCabe and 15 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03934866 (The SUMMIT Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03934866 active not recruitingnot on this map

The SUMMIT Study: Cancer Screening Study With or Without Low Dose Lung CT to Validate a Multi-cancer Early Detection Test

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2019 to 2030Enrolled13,035ConditionsCancer, Lung CancerArmsLow Dose CT scan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: What Should We Do in 2026?Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer L DicksonLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Amyn BhamaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Samantha L QuaifeCentre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Carolyn HorstLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Sophie TisiLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Helen HallLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Priyam VergheseLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew CreamerLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Ruth PrendeckiLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
John McCabeLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Kylie GyertsonUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Vicky BowyerUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ethaar El-EmirUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alice CottonUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Simranjit MehtaUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Fanta BojangUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Claire LevermoreUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anne-Marie MullinCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Jonathan TeagueCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Laura FarrellyCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Arjun NairUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anand DevarajRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Allan HackshawCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Sam M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: s.janes@ucl.ac.uk.
SUMMIT consortium
University College London · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCancer Research UK · GBImperial College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 24460Cancer Research UK C50664/A24460Cancer Research UK EDDCPGM\100002Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/W025051/1Wellcome Trust WT107963AIA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPulmonary nodules are commonly found in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS), with results typically communicated by face-to-face or telephone consultation. Providing LCS on a population basis requires resource efficient and scalabe communication methods. Written communication provides one such method. Here, we assess participant satisfaction with this approach in a LCS setting and investigate characteristics associated with dissatisfaction. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe SUMMIT Study is a prospective observational cohort study which aims to assess the implementation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) scanning for LCS in a high-risk population and validate a multi-cancer early detection blood test (NCT03934866). Participants with indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring a three-month interval LDCT were informed of their result by postal letter and given a face-to-face appointment with a study practitioner at their interval LDCT appointment. At this appointment, having previously received their results letter, participants were verbally asked questions to assess their satisfaction with, and preferences for, methods of results communication.

results1,900 participants were included in the analysis. 82.8% (n = 1573) were satisfied with receiving their results by letter, with 2.9% (n = 55) reporting dissatisfaction. 86.3% (n = 1640) stated it was their preferred communication method and 77.3% (n = 1469) reported that their letter contained the right amount of information. Participants from less deprived socioeconomic quintiles were more likely to report that the letter contained insufficient information and individuals aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to do so. Although 13.7% (n = 261) participants had discussed their results with their General Practitioner (GP) prior to the study visit, 83.9% (n = 219) of these participants were satisfied with receiving results by letter, with the same proportion preferring this communication method.

conclusionWe report high participant satisfaction with the reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a LCS setting. We believe this provides a feasible route forward for large-scale screening programmes.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsMultiple Pulmonary NodulesEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationTelephoneCommunicationEarly detection of cancerPatient satisfactionSolitary pulmonary nodule

Identifiers

PMID35487105
PMCPMC10442288
OpenAlexW4224281439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.