Juliet A. Usher-Smith, Golnessa Masson, Angela Godoy, Sarah W. Burge, Jessica Kitt, Fiona Farquhar, Jon Cartledge, Michael Kimuli, Simon Burbidge, Philip A. J. Crosbie, Claire Eckert, Neil Hancock, Gareth R. Iball, Suzanne Rogerson, Sabrina H. Rossi, Andrew Smith, Irene Simmonds, Tom Wallace, Matthew Ward, Matthew E. J. Callister, Grant D. Stewart
Abstract
The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST).
Introduction
Kidney cancer is largely curable if detected early. However, up to 60% of patients are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis [1] and over 25% are diagnosed with metastatic disease [2] which carriers a poor prognosis. Together with the increasing incidence of the disease [2].
Materials and Methods
This study was granted approval by the North West—Preston Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/NW/0021).
Result
We conducted interviews with a purposive sample of 20 YKST participants who had taken up the additional abdominal scan, five YLST participants who had declined the additional scan and eight healthcare professionals involved in the screening process.
Discussion
Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose CT within a community-based lung cancer screening programme was considered acceptable to all the participants of this study, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. In particular, the rationale for combining the abdominal scan with the lung scan made sense and fitted well within the process.
Conclusion
Together, our findings suggest that combined screening programmes, specifically in this case combining abdominal CT scanning within lung screening programmes, is likely to be widely acceptable to both participants and those healthcare professionals involved in the programmes.
Citation: Usher-Smith JA, Masson G, Godoy A, Burge SW, Kitt J, Farquhar F, et al. (2024) Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE 19(7): e0300313. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300313
Editor: Aloysius Gonzaga Mubuuke, Makere University College of Health Sciences, UGANDA
Received: July 25, 2023; Accepted: February 27, 2024; Published: July 1, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Usher-Smith et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The pseudo-anonymised interview transcripts are available from the University of Cambridge data repository (https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.104611). Formal requests for access will be considered via a data‐sharing agreement that indicates the criteria for data access and conditions for research use and will incorporate privacy and confidentiality standards to ensure data security.
Funding: YKST is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research grant number L403C. This qualitative sub-study is funded by a grant from Kidney Cancer UK. GDS is supported by The Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre [C9685/A25177 and CTRQQR-2021\100012] and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312). JUS is supported by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300861). PAJC is supported by the Manchester National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20007). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: GDS has received educational grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Intuitive Surgical; consultancy fees from Pfizer, BMS, Merck, EUSA Pharma, and CMR Surgical; travel expenses from Pfizer; and speaker fees from Pfizer. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300313#abstract0
