Responses

Download PDFPDF

Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot in deprived areas of Manchester
Free
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. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

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.