Article Text

other Versions

PDF

Correspondence
Authors' response
  1. John K Field1,
  2. David Baldwin2,
  3. Kate Brain3,
  4. Anand Devaraj4,
  5. Tim Eisen5,
  6. Stephen W Duffy6,
  7. David M Hansell7,
  8. Keith Kerr8,
  9. Richard Page9,
  10. Mahash Parmar10,
  11. David Weller11,
  12. David Whynes12,
  13. Paula Williamson13
  1. 1Roy Castle Lung Cancer Research Programme, University of Liverpool Cancer Research Centre, Liverpool, UK
  2. 2City Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
  3. 3Institute of Medical Genetics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
  4. 4Department of Radiology, St George's Hospital London, London, UK
  5. 5Department of Oncology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK
  6. 6Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and London, London, UK
  7. 7Department of Radiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
  8. 8Department of Pathology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
  9. 9Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  10. 10Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, University College London, London, UK
  11. 11Centre for Population Health Sciences, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK
  12. 12School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  13. 13Medical Statistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor John K Field, Roy Castle Lung Cancer Research Programme, University of Liverpool Cancer Research Centre, Roy Castle Building The University of Liverpool 200 London Road, Liverpool L3 9TA, UK; j.k.field{at}liv.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We thank Dutt et al1 for their comments on the recent UKLS Position Statement.2 The UKLS Position Statement focused on the recent NLST trial publication in the New England Journal of Medicine3 and was not an overview of all of the primary and secondary outcomes of the pilot UKLS trial. Further details of these outcomes have been given in our first paper on the UKLS trial, which focused on the basic design of the trial including radiology protocol and nodule management.4 All four points raised by Dutt et al are aspects we will study within the screening trial.

The UKLS is specifically designed to select high risk individuals as these are the very group who will benefit the most from such a CT screening trial. Apart from demonstrating a mortality advantage with CT screening, cost effectiveness will be a major issue in determining whether lung cancer screening is considered a feasible option for early lung cancer detection in the UK.

Once CT screening has been demonstrated to be an effective early detection measure within the NHS for high risk individuals, then will be the time to consider modelling for high risk within ethnic communities.5

References

View Abstract

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles