Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
1001 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2017-07-01
2022-03-21
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
An Observational Study of Predictors and Outcomes of Lung Cancer in Never-smokers in the UK
NCT06575439
Studies Examining the Importance of Smoking After Being Diagnosed With Lung Cancer
NCT01192256
Precision Lung Cancer Survivorship Care Intervention
NCT05857995
Feasibility and Acceptability of an Web-based Physical Activity Program, for Those Diagnosed With Lung Cancer.
NCT05121259
Feasibility Trial of a Personalised Nutrition and Activity Programme for People With Lung Cancer Over 65 Years
NCT05404022
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
More than 85% of cases of lung cancer are caused by tobacco smoking, and stopping smoking, at any age, significantly reduces lung cancer risk. It is therefore essential that any lung cancer screening programme provides smoking cessation support for participants, and doing so significantly increases the overall success of lung cancer screening programmes. One concern that has been raised around lung cancer screening for current smokers is the potential 'moral hazard' arising from a negative (i.e. reassuring) screening result, which may reduce motivation to quit. Conversely, attendance at a lung cancer screening programme offers a 'teachable moment' for smoking cessation, occurring at a time when participating smokers may be particularly receptive to offers of help to quit and indeed a negative screen result has been reported as being perceived as a 'clean slate' as a motivator to stop smoking. This observation fits with unpublished findings from a screening initiative in Manchester that despite a high prevalence of emphysema (68%) and coronary artery calcification (74%), most attendees were fit and relatively asymptomatic (85-90% performance status 0-1 and MRC dyspnoea scale 1-2), and hence potentially more susceptible to a message that lung damage had already occurred but clinical impact could be reduced by stopping smoking. One report from the NELSON study suggested a lower quit rate in screened persons compared to the unscreened control group, although a statistically significant effect did not persist following intention to treat analysis. No significant difference was seen between screened and control populations in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Study, and the quit rate was significantly higher in screened versus control populations in the UK Lung Screening (UKLS) Pilot. Evidence suggests that smoking cessation and LDCT screening have additive effects on survival. An analysis of participants in the NLST reported a 38% reduction in lung cancer mortality with the combination of smoking abstinence at 15 years with LDCT screening; in addition, detection of an abnormality on the CT scan was associated with increased likelihood of smoking cessation. Further analysis of the NLST showed that arranging the smoking cessation support at the time of the screening increased quit rates by 46% (although this intervention was delivered to only 10% of study participants). In addition, research has indicated that adding smoking cessation interventions to LDCT screening improves the cost effectiveness of such programmes.
However, while smoking cessation is clearly an effective preventive intervention there is little evidence on the design and optimization of the smoking cessation interventions and support used in the screening setting. Evidence from a systematic review published in 2014 showed a benefit of materials tailored to the characteristics of individual smokers, although the included studies were conducted predominantly in the general population, rather than screening participants. Less research has been conducted investigating approaches to cessation in smokers attending for lung cancer screening, although a recent study by Marshall and colleagues reported that it was feasible to deliver a single tailored session of motivational interviewing counselling on the day of screening. For historical reasons NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSS) have evolved across the UK as opt-in facilities, whereby smokers who decide or agree to try to quit smoking then seek and are delivered help to do so. During the past five years however, evidence has grown that provision of smoking cessation support as an opt-out default generates far more quit attempts. We have demonstrated this to be the case in hospital inpatients, in which the opt-out model approximately doubled service uptake. Similar findings have been reported in relation to pregnant women setting quit dates in one NHS Foundation Trust, with uptake more than doubling after 'opt out' referrals were implemented. A study from the US found that 83% of eligible smokers did not opt out of a bedside consultation. Pro-active and systematic approaches to smoking cessation provision were recommended by NICE for pregnant women in 2010 and across all acute, maternity and mental health settings in 2013.
A recent UK study has also demonstrated the efficacy of including personalised risk information when inviting participants to smoking cessation services. A randomised controlled trial compared an individually tailored risk letter with an invitation to attend an introductory smoking cessation session to a standard generic letter advertising smoking cessation services. The personalised information was presented as a "Personal Health Risk Report", and included information on the participant's general health derived from Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) registered conditions on the GP record. In addition disease-specific health risks were included in the risk report, with the aim of making the individual aware of the personal health consequences of continuing to smoke, and their own individual risk of serious illness. The aim of providing this information was to change the individual's balance of perceived 'benefits' against their understanding of the harm caused by smoking. The group receiving personalised risk information had significantly higher attendance at stop smoking service (17.4% vs. 9.0%, adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.8- 2.7), higher completion of a 6-week NHS course (14.5% vs. 7.0%, adjusted OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8-2.9) and higher 6- month validated abstinence (9.0% vs. 5.5%, adjusted OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.29-2.14).
To maximize smoking cessation among lung cancer screening participants it is therefore clearly important that all smokers who attend are provided with cessation support as a routine opt-out component of the screening visit, and that this support provides cessation pharmacotherapy and behavioural support in accordance with evidence-based NHS SSS practice. Furthermore the screening process, including risk assessment for lung cancer and imaging of the lung parenchyma and coronary arteries, allows an unprecedented opportunity for personalising the risks and harms of continued smoking, or conversely, the health gains to be made by successful smoking cessation. However there is currently no evidence on how best to design services to maximize the opportunity provided by screening participation, and how best to use the personalised information forthcoming from the screening process.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Usual Care
Smoking Cessation NICE PH48 Guidelines
Usual Care
Smoking cessation support in line with NICE PH48 guidelines
Intervention
Smoking Cessation NICE PH48 Guidelines plus personalised feedback from Lung Scan
Intervention
In addition to usual care, personalised feedback from the participants screening appointment will be provided;
* For participants with emphysema, an image of their own emphysematous lung compared to a library image of normal lung, or a section of their own non-emphysematous lung. Where emphysema is not present, library pictures showing normal and emphysematous lung will be used.
* For participants with coronary artery calcification, a cross sectional segment from their chest scan (either horizontal or vertical) showing the calcium compared to a library image of coronary arteries without calcification and/or a healthy section of the participant's own heart scan. Where coronary artery calcification is not present, library pictures showing normal and calcified coronary arteries will be provided.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Intervention
In addition to usual care, personalised feedback from the participants screening appointment will be provided;
* For participants with emphysema, an image of their own emphysematous lung compared to a library image of normal lung, or a section of their own non-emphysematous lung. Where emphysema is not present, library pictures showing normal and emphysematous lung will be used.
* For participants with coronary artery calcification, a cross sectional segment from their chest scan (either horizontal or vertical) showing the calcium compared to a library image of coronary arteries without calcification and/or a healthy section of the participant's own heart scan. Where coronary artery calcification is not present, library pictures showing normal and calcified coronary arteries will be provided.
Usual Care
Smoking cessation support in line with NICE PH48 guidelines
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Registered as a current or ex-smoker in a General Practice participating in YLST
* Have attended for a 'Lung Health Check' and agreed to see the SCP as part of YLST
* Smoked within the last month or have exhaled CO reading of 6ppm or above.
* Have capacity to provide informed consent.
55 Years
80 Years
MALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
OTHER
University of Leeds
OTHER
Cardiff University
OTHER
University of Manchester
OTHER
University College, London
OTHER
University of York
OTHER
Yorkshire Cancer Research
OTHER
University of Nottingham
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Rachael L Murray, BSc MS MSc PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Nottingham
Matthew Callister, MA, BM BCh, MEd, FRCP, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
McInnerney D, Simmonds I, Hancock N, Rogerson S, Lindop J, Gabe R, Vulkan D, Marshall C, Crosbie PAJ, Callister MEJ, Quaife SL. Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) pathway navigation study: a protocol for a nested randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a pathway navigation intervention on lung cancer screening uptake. BMJ Open. 2024 Jul 9;14(7):e084577. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084577.
Murray RL, Brain K, Britton J, Quinn-Scoggins HD, Lewis S, McCutchan GM, Quaife SL, Wu Q, Ashurst A, Baldwin D, Crosbie PAJ, Neal RD, Parrott S, Rogerson S, Thorley R, Callister ME. Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme. BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 10;10(9):e037086. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037086.
Crosbie PA, Gabe R, Simmonds I, Kennedy M, Rogerson S, Ahmed N, Baldwin DR, Booton R, Cochrane A, Darby M, Franks K, Hinde S, Janes SM, Macleod U, Messenger M, Moller H, Murray RL, Neal RD, Quaife SL, Sculpher M, Tharmanathan P, Torgerson D, Callister ME. Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk. BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 10;10(9):e037075. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037075.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
18046
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.