Hesitancy around low-dose CT screening for lung cancer

•LCS with LDCT in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality.•LCS has been introduced in the United States, but few unified, national LCS programmes are in place across Europe.•Barriers to the widespread implementation of LCS in Europe are well documented with appropriate mitigations available.•Necessary research is underway across several European counties to address existing barriers and optimise practice.•Existing barriers should not serve as reasons not to implement national, unified LCS programmes across Europe. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The absence of symptoms in early-stage (I/II) disease, when curative treatment is possible, results in >70% of cases being diagnosed at late stage (III/IV), when treatment is rarely curative. This contributes greatly to the poor prognosis of lung cancer, which sees only 16.2% of individuals diagnosed with the disease alive at 5 years. Early detection is key to improving lung cancer survival outcomes. As a result, there has been longstanding interest in finding a reliable screening test. After little success with chest radiography and sputum cytology, in 2011 the United States National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer-specific mortality by 20%, when compared with annual chest radiography. In 2020, the NELSON study demonstrated an even greater reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality for LDCT screening at 0, 1, 3 and 5.5 years of 24% in men, when compared to no screening. Despite these impressive results, a call to arms in the 2017 European position statement on lung cancer screening (LCS) and the widespread introduction across the United States, there was, until recently, no population-based European national screening programme in place. We address the potential barriers and outstanding concerns including common screening foes, such as false-positive tests, overdiagnosis and the negative psychological impact of screening, as well as others more unique to LDCT LCS, including appropriate risk stratification of potential participants, radiation exposure and incidental findings. In doing this, we conclude that whilst the evidence generated from ongoing work can be used to refine the screening process, for those risks which remain, appropriate and acceptable mitigations are available, and none should serve as barriers to the implementation of national unified LCS programmes across Europe and beyond. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The absence of symptoms in early-stage (I/II) disease, when curative treatment is possible, results in >70% of cases being diagnosed at late stage (III/IV), when treatment is rarely curative. This contributes greatly to the poor prognosis of lung cancer, which sees only 16.2% of individuals diagnosed with the disease alive at 5 years. Early detection is key to improving lung cancer survival outcomes. As a result, there has been longstanding interest in finding a reliable screening test. After little success with chest radiography and sputum cytology, in 2011 the United States National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduced lung cancer-specific mortality by 20%, when compared with annual chest radiography. In 2020, the NELSON study demonstrated an even greater reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality for LDCT screening at 0, 1, 3 and 5.5 years of 24% in men, when compared to no screening. Despite these impressive results, a call to arms in the 2017 European position statement on lung cancer screening (LCS) and the widespread introduction across the United States, there was, until recently, no population-based European national screening programme in place. We address the potential barriers and outstanding concerns including common screening foes, such as false-positive tests, overdiagnosis and the negative psychological impact of screening, as well as others more unique to LDCT LCS, including appropriate risk stratification of potential participants, radiation exposure and incidental findings. In doing this, we conclude that whilst the evidence generated from ongoing work can be used to refine the screening process, for those risks which remain, appropriate and acceptable mitigations are available, and none should serve as barriers to the implementation of national unified LCS programmes across Europe and beyond.