Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36621036›Full record

Observational studyLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2023

The SUMMIT Study: Utilising a written 'Next Steps' information booklet to prepare participants for potential lung cancer screening results and follow-up.

Amyn Bhamani, Carolyn Horst, Fanta Bojang, Samantha L Quaife, Jennifer L Dickson, Sophie Tisi, Helen Hall, Priyam Verghese, Andrew Creamer, Ruth Prendecki 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), 2023. 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Amyn BhamaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Carolyn HorstLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Fanta BojangUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 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.
Jennifer L DicksonLungs 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.
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.
SUMMIT consortium
Sam M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: s.janes@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCancer Research UK · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25349Cancer Research UK 28706Cancer Research UK C50664/A24460Cancer Research UK EDDCPGM\100002Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/W025051/1Wellcome Trust 209553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLow-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer can result in several potential outcomes of varying significance. Communication methods used in Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) programmes must, therefore, ensure that participants are prepared for the range of possible results and follow-up. Here, we assess perceptions of a written preparatory information booklet provided to participants in a large LCS cohort designed to convey this information. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll participants in the SUMMIT Study (NCT03934866) were provided with a results preparation information booklet, entitled 'The SUMMIT Study: Next Steps' at their baseline appointment which outlined potential results, their significance, and timelines for follow up. Results from the LDCT scan and Lung Health Check were subsequently sent by letter. Perceptions of this booklet were assessed among participants with indeterminate pulmonary findings when they attended a face-to-face appointment immediately before their three-month interval scan. Specifically, questions assessed the perceived usefulness of the booklet and the amount of information contained in it.

results70.1% (n = 1,412/2,014) participants remembered receiving the booklet at their appointment. Of these participants, 72.0% (n = 1,017/1,412) found it quite or very useful and 68.0% (n = 960/1,412) reported that it contained the right amount of information. Older participants, those from the least deprived socioeconomic quintile and those of Black ethnicity were less likely to report finding the booklet either quite or very useful, or that it contained the right amount of information. Participants who remembered receiving the booklet were more likely to be satisfied with the process of results communication by letter.

conclusionProviding written information that prepares participants for possible LDCT results and their significance appears to be a useful resource and a helpful adjunct to a written method of results communication for large scale LCS programmes.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsFollow-Up StudiesHumansMass ScreeningPamphletsTomography, X-Ray ComputedLDCTLung Cancer ScreeningPulmonary NoduleResult Communication

Identifiers

PMID36621036
PMCPMC7615157
OpenAlexW4312204043

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.