Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36709053›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2023

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

Jennifer L Dickson, Helen Hall, Carolyn Horst, Sophie Tisi, Priyam Verghese, Anne-Marie Mullin, Jon Teague, Laura Farrelly, Vicky Bowyer, Kylie Gyertson and 11 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Public health, 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 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Low dose CT for lung cancer screening.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer L DicksonLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Helen HallLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College 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.
Priyam VergheseLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Anne-Marie MullinCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Jon 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.
Vicky BowyerUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kylie GyertsonUniversity 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.
Tania AnastasiadisTower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group, London, UK.
John McCabeLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Neal NavaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 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.
Samantha L QuaifeWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of 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 · GBLondon Borough of Tower Hamlets · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBRoyal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 24460Cancer Research UK 25349Cancer Research UK 28706Medical Research Council MR/T02481X/1Wellcome Trust 209553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer.

methodsIn this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866.

findingsBetween March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity).

interpretationInviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response.

fundingGRAIL.

Indexed as

COVID-19Lung NeoplasmsAdultAgedCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesLungMalePandemicsProspective StudiesRisk FactorsState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID36709053
PMCPMC7615156
OpenAlexW4318159268

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.