Download PDFPDF

Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot in deprived areas of Manchester
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Lung Health Check Pilot and Implications for Population Screening
    • Robert Steele, Independent Chair UK National Screening Committee
    • Other Contributors:
      • John Marshall, Evidence Lead
      • Anne Mackie, Director of Programmes

    We read the extremely important paper by Crosbie et al1 with interest as it has potential implications for population screening for lung cancer. However, the paper contains some ambiguities and inconsistencies and it would be very helpful to obtain clarification from the authors in order to interpret their findings in a population screening context.

    Firstly, in the methods section, it is stated that ever smokers aged 50 to 74 years registered at participating general practices were invited to a community based lung health check (LHC). It is not stated whether every individual registered as an ever smoker was invited. However, assuming this was the case it appears from the flow chart that a total of 16,402 invitation letters were sent out, but if the aim was to send these only to individuals registered as ever smokers it is not clear why 6,476 letters were sent to never smokers.

    In any event, the flow chart indicates that letters were sent to 9,926 smokers and that 2,613 attended the LHC. Thus the uptake of the first filter was 26.3% which does not resonate with the first statement in the results section i.e. “Demand was extremely high”.

    There are also two apparent inconsistencies in the data presented; in table 1 the number of attendees is stated as 2,541 yet in the flow chart it is 2,613. In addition, in the legend for the flow chart it is indicated that the overall numbers are based on General Practitioner recorded smoking status for 15,072 individua...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.