Smoking cessation interventions within the context of Low-Dose Computed Tomography lung cancer screening: A systematic review

Barriers and Facilitators to Engaging in Smoking Cessation Support Among Lung Screening Participants

INTRODUCTION

Embedded smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening is recommended in the United Kingdom; however, little is known about why individuals decline smoking cessation support in this setting. This study identified psychosocial factors that influence smoking cessation and quit motivation among those who declined support for quitting smoking alongside lung cancer screening.

AIMS AND METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted between August 2019 and April 2021 with 30 adults with a smoking history, recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Participants had declined smoking cessation support. Verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty percent of participants were male and the majority were from the most deprived groups. Participants reported low motivation and a variety of barriers to stopping smoking. Participants described modifiable behavioral factors that influenced their quit motivation including self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of stop-smoking services including smoking cessation aids, risk-minimizing beliefs, lack of social support, absence of positive influences on smoking, and beliefs about smoking/smoking cessation. Broader contextual factors included social isolation and stigma, coronavirus disease 2019, and comorbid mental and physical health conditions that deterred smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

To encourage engagement in smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening, interventions should seek to encourage positive beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation aids and increase confidence in quitting as part of supportive, person-centered care. Interventions should also acknowledge the wider social determinants of health among the lung screening-eligible population.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides an in-depth understanding of the beliefs surrounding smoking and smoking cessation and further potential psychosocial factors that influence those attending lung cancer screening. Many of the barriers to smoking cessation found in the present study are similar to those outside of a lung screening setting however this work offers an understanding of potential facilitators that should be considered in future lung screening programs.

Low-dose computed tomography scan and biopsy for assessing lung cancer prevalence and related factors in high-risk populations

Background

Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in 2020, representing approximately one in 10 (11.4 %) cancers diagnosed and one in 5 (18.0 %) deaths. There are currently very few studies evaluating the prevalence and related factors of lung cancer detected using low-dose CT scans.

Objective

Evaluate the prevalence and related factors of lung cancer using low-dose CT scans in high-risk populations in Vietnam.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional analysis study of 169 high-risk patients was conducted to assess the lung cancer prevalence and related factors. Enrolled patients received a physical examination, low-dose computerized tomography scan, and biopsy if abnormalities were found through the CT scan. Univariable and Multivariable analysis through Odd Ratio (OR) to assess the related risk of lung cancer.

Results

A total of 169 high-risk patients with a mean age of 62.93 ± 9.31 (years), and the majority were male (91.7 %). Of which 4 cases (2.37 %) were recorded with lung cancer, 3 cases of adenocarcinoma, and 1 case of squamous cell carcinoma. A history of smoking and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were associated with an increased risk of abnormalities on lung CT scans. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that smoking over 30 pack-years and COPD significantly increased the risk of abnormalities on lung CT scans, p < 0.05.100 % of lung cancer-detected cases were male and smoking ≥30 pack - years.

Conclusion

The prevalence of lung cancer in the Vietnamese high-risk population was relatively high. Relative factors such as smoking ≥30 pack - years, and COPD had increased risk of CTscan abnormalities.

Smoking, Lung Cancer Stage, and Prognostic Factors-Findings from the National Lung Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) increases the early detection of lung cancer. Identifying modifiable behaviors that may affect tumor progression in LDCT-detected patients increases the likelihood of long-term survival and a good quality of life.

METHODS

We examined cigarette smoking behaviors on lung cancer stage, progression, and survival in 299 ever-smoking patients with low-dose CT-detected tumors from the National Lung Screening Trial. Univariate and multivariate Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for smoking variables on survival time.

RESULTS

Current vs. former smokers and early morning smokers (≤5 min after waking, i.e., time to first cigarette (TTFC) ≤ 5 min) had more advanced-stage lung cancer. The adjusted HR for current vs. former smokers was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.911-1.98, p = 0.136) for overall survival (OS) and 1.3 (0.893-1.87, p = 0.1736) for progression-free survival (PFS). The univariate hazard ratios for TTFC ≤ 5 min vs. >5 min were 1.56 (1.1-2.2, p = 0.013) for OS and 1.53 (1.1-2.12, p = 0.01) for PFS. Among current smokers, the corresponding HRs for early TTFC were 1.78 (1.16-2.74, p = 0.0088) and 1.95 (1.29-2.95, p = 0.0016) for OS and PFS, respectively. In causal mediation analysis, the TTFC effect on survival time was mediated entirely through lung cancer stage.

CONCLUSION

The current findings indicate smoking behaviors at diagnosis may affect lung cancer stage and prognosis.

Optimizing Longitudinal Tobacco Cessation Treatment in Lung Cancer Screening: A Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial

Importance

Nearly half of the 14.8 million US adults eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) smoke cigarettes. The optimal smoking cessation program components for the LCS setting are unclear.

Objective

To assess the effect of adding a referral to prescription medication therapy management (MTM) to the tobacco longitudinal care (TLC) program among patients eligible for LCS who smoke and do not respond to early tobacco treatment and to assess the effect of decreasing the intensity of TLC among participants who do respond to early treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial included patients who currently smoked cigarettes daily and were eligible for LCS. Recruitment took place at primary care centers and LCS programs at 3 large health systems in the US and began in October 2016, and 18-month follow-up was completed April 2021.

Interventions

(1) TLC comprising intensive telephone coaching and combination nicotine replacement therapy for 1 year with at least monthly contact; (2) TLC with MTM, MTM offered pharmacist-referral for prescription medications; and (3) Quarterly TLC, intensity of TLC was decreased to quarterly contact. Intervention assignments were based on early response to tobacco treatment (abstinence) that was assessed either 4 weeks or 8 weeks after treatment initiation.

Main outcomes and Measures

Self-reported, 6-month prolonged abstinence at 18-month.

Results

Of 636 participants, 228 (35.9%) were female, 564 (89.4%) were White individuals, and the median (IQR) age was 64.3 (59.6-68.8) years. Four weeks or 8 weeks after treatment initiation, 510 participants (80.2%) continued to smoke (ie, early treatment nonresponders) and 126 participants (19.8%) had quit (ie, early treatment responders). The 18 month follow-up survey response rate was 83.2% (529 of 636). Across TLC groups at 18 months follow-up, the overall 6-month prolonged abstinence rate was 24.4% (129 of 529). Among the 416 early treatment nonresponders, 6-month prolonged abstinence for TLC with MTM vs TLC was 17.8% vs 16.4% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13; 95% CI, 0.67-1.89). In TLC with MTM, 98 of 254 participants (39%) completed at least 1 MTM visit. Among 113 early treatment responders, 6-month prolonged abstinence for Quarterly TLC vs TLC was 24 of 55 (43.6%) vs 34 of 58 (58.6%) (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25-1.17).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, adding referral to MTM with TLC for participants who did not respond to early treatment did not improve smoking abstinence. Stepping down to Quarterly TLC among early treatment responders is not recommended. Integrating longitudinal tobacco cessation care with LCS is feasible and associated with clinically meaningful quit rates.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02597491.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation on the high-risk population of lung cancer with early screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials until January 2022

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer has always been the malignant tumor with the highest incidence rate. Smoking is the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Although potential positive effects of smoking cessation interventions on the high-risk population of lung cancer have been observed, evidence of its definitive effect remains uncertain. This study aimed to summarize the evidence related to the effects and safety of smoking cessation interventions for the high-risk population of lung cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted through the following seven databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Direct. Screening and assessment for risk of bias were conducted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed for the 7-day-point prevalence of smoking abstinence and continuous smoking abstinence using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis results show that in the 7-day-point prevalence of smoking abstinence (by patient-reported outcome): individualized intervention was significantly higher than that of the standard care [RR = 1.46, 95%CI = (1.04,2.06), P < 0.05]. Moreover, the smoking cessation interventions were significantly elevated than that of standard care [RR = 1.58, 95%CI = (1.12, 2.23), P < 0.05] within 1-6 month follow-up time. In line with the findings in cigarette smoking, the continuous smoking abstinence of E-cigarettes (biochemical verified): E-cigarettes were significantly higher than that of the standard care [RR = 1.51, 95%CI = (1.03, 2.21), P < 0.05], and within 1-6 month follow-up time, the smoking cessation interventions were significantly greater than that of standard care [RR = 1.51, 95%CI = (1.03, 2.21), P < 0.05]. Publication bias was detected possibly.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review show that smoking cessation intervention is effective for long-term lung cancer high-risk smokers who participate in early screening, of which E-cigarettes are the best, followed by individual smoking cessation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

A review protocol was developed and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019147151. Registered 23 June 2022.

Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context

BACKGROUND

Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population.

METHODS

An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel.

RESULTS

Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs.

CONCLUSION

An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

"It's a decision I have to make": Patient perspectives on smoking and cessation after lung cancer screening decisions

Few studies exist showing that involvement in lung cancer screening (LCS) leads to a change in rates of cigarette smoking. We investigated LCS longitudinally to determine whether teachable moments for smoking cessation occur downstream from the initial provider-patient LCS shared decision-making discussion and self-reported effects on smoking behaviors. We performed up to two successive semi-structured interviews to assess the experiences of 39 individuals who formerly or currently smoked cigarettes who underwent LCS decision-making discussions performed during routine care from three established US medical center LCS programs.

The majority of those who remembered hearing about the importance of smoking cessation after LCS-related encounters did not report communication about smoking influencing their motivation to quit or abstain from smoking, including patients who were found to have pulmonary nodules. Patients experienced little distress related to LCS discussions. Patients reported that there were other, more significant, reasons for quitting or abstinence. They recommended clinicians continue to ask about smoking at every clinical encounter, provide information comparing the benefits of LCS with those of quitting smoking, and have clinicians help them identify triggers or other motivators for improving smoking behaviors. Our findings suggest that there may be other teachable moment opportunities outside of LCS processes that could be utilized to motivate smoking reduction or cessation, or LCS processes could be improved to integrate cessation resources.

A Randomized Trial of Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer mortality is reduced via low-dose CT screening and treatment of early-stage disease. Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in the lung screening setting can further reduce mortality. We report the results of a cessation trial from the NCI's SCALE collaboration.

METHODS

Eligible patients (N = 818) aged 50-80 were randomized (May 2017-January 2021) to the Intensive vs. Minimal arms (8 vs. 3 phone sessions plus 8 vs. 2 weeks of nicotine patches, respectively). Bio-verified (primary) and self-reported 7-day abstinence rates were assessed 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-randomization. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the effects of study arm. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Participants reported 48.0 (SD = 17.2) pack-years and 51.6% were not ready to quit in < 30 days. Self-reported 3-month quit rates were significantly higher in the Intensive vs. Minimal arm (14.3% vs. 7.9%; OR = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26,3.18). Bio-verified abstinence was lower but with similar relative differences between arms (9.1% vs. 3.9%; OR = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.44, 5.08). Compared to the Minimal arm, the Intensive arm was more effective among those with greater nicotine dependence (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.55, 7.76), normal screening results (OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.32, 5.03), high engagement in counseling (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.50, 6.14) and patch use (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.39, 5.68). Abstinence rates did not differ significantly between arms at 6-months (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.68, 2.11) or 12-months (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.82, 2.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Delivering intensive telephone counseling and nicotine replacement with lung screening is an effective strategy to increase short-term smoking cessation. Methods to maintain short-term effects are needed. Even with modest quit rates, integrating cessation treatment into lung screening programs may have a large impact on tobacco-related mortality.

Integrating supportive care into the multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: we can't wait any longer

INTRODUCTION

Due to important achievements in terms of diagnostic and therapeutic tools and the complexity of the disease itself, lung cancer management needs a multidisciplinary approach. To date, the classical multidisciplinary team involves different healthcare providers mainly dedicated to lung cancer diagnosis and treatments. Nevertheless, the underlying disease and related treatments significantly impact on patient function and psychological well-being. In this sense, supportive care may offer the best approach to relieve and manage patient symptoms and treatment-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Evidence report that exercise, nutrition, smoking cessation and psychological well-being bring many benefits in patients with lung cancer, from both a physical and socio-psychological points of view, and potentially improving their survival. Nevertheless, supportive care is rarely offered to patients, and even less frequently these needs are discussed within the multidisciplinary meeting.

EXPERT OPINION

Integrating supportive care as part of the standard multidisciplinary approach for lung cancer involves a series of challenges, the first one represented by the daily necessity of specialists, such as kinesiologists, dietitians, psycho-oncologists, able to deliver a personalized approach. In the era of precision medicine this is an essential step forward to guarantee comprehensive and patient-centered care for all patients with lung cancer.

The Survival Impact of Second Primary Lung Cancer in Patients With Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC), but little is known about the survival impact of SPLC diagnosis.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 138 969 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), who were surgically treated for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1988-2013. Each patient was followed from the date of IPLC diagnosis to SPLC diagnosis (for those with SPLC) and last vital status through 2016. We performed multivariable Cox regression to evaluate the association between overall survival and SPLC diagnosis as a time-varying predictor. To investigate potential effect modification, we tested interaction between SPLC and IPLC stage. Using data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC) (n = 1540 IPLC patients with surgery), we evaluated the survival impact of SPLC by smoking status. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 12 115 (8.7%) patients developed SPLC in SEER over 700 421 person-years of follow-up. Compared with patients with single primary lung cancer, those with SPLC had statistically significantly reduced overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.06 to 2.17; P < .001). The effect of SPLC on reduced survival was more pronounced among patients with early stage IPLC vs advanced-stage IPLC (HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 2.08 to 2.20, vs HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.70, respectively; Pinteraction < .001). Analysis using MEC data showed that the effect of SPLC on reduced survival was statistically significantly larger among persons who actively smoked at initial diagnosis vs those who formerly or never smoked (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.48 to 3.61, vs HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.03, respectively; Pinteraction = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

SPLC diagnosis is statistically significantly associated with decreased survival in SEER and MEC. Intensive surveillance targeting patients with early stage IPLC and active smoking at IPLC diagnosis may lead to a larger survival benefit.

Engaging Patients in Smoking Cessation Treatment within the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: Lessons Learned from an NCI SCALE Trial

Offering smoking cessation treatment at lung cancer screening (LCS) will maximize mortality reduction associated with screening, but predictors of treatment engagement are not well understood. We examined participant characteristics of engagement in an NCI SCALE cessation trial. Eligible LCS patients (N = 818) were randomized to the Intensive arm (8 phone counseling sessions +8 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)) vs. Minimal arm (3 sessions + 2 weeks of NRT). Engagement was measured by number of sessions completed (none, some, or all) and NRT mailed (none vs. any) in each arm. In the Intensive arm, those with ≥some college (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 4.0) and undergoing an annual scan (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 4.2) engaged in some counseling vs. none. Individuals with higher nicotine dependence were more likely (OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.3, 6.2) to request NRT. In the Minimal arm, those with higher education (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.9) and undergoing an annual scan (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.04, 3.8) completed some sessions vs. none. Requesting NRT was associated with more pack-years (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.5). Regardless of treatment intensity, additional strategies are needed to engage those with lower education, less intensive smoking histories, and undergoing a first scan. These efforts will be important given the broader 2021 LCS guidelines.

Improved motivation and readiness to quit shortly after lung cancer screening: Evidence for a teachable moment

BACKGROUND

For patients at high risk for lung cancer, screening using low-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening [LCS]) is recommended. The purpose of this study was to examine whether screening may serve as a teachable moment for smoking-related outcomes.

METHODS

In a smoking-cessation trial, participants (N = 843) completed 2 phone interviews before randomization: before LCS (T0) and after LCS (T1). By using logistic and linear regression, the authors examined teachable moment variables (perceived risk, lung cancer worry) and outcomes (readiness, motivation, and cigarettes per day [CPD]).

RESULTS

Participants were a mean ± SD age of 63.7 ± 5.9 years, had 47.8 ± 7.1 pack-years of smoking, 35.2% had a high school diploma or General Educational Development (high school equivalency) degree or less, and 42.3% were undergoing their first scan. Between T0 and T1, 25.7% of participants increased readiness to quit, 9.6% decreased readiness, and 64.7% reported no change (P < .001). Motivation to quit increased (P < .05) and CPD decreased between assessments (P < .001), but only 1.3% self-reported quitting. Compared with individuals who reported no lung cancer worry/little worry, extreme worry was associated with readiness to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0) and with higher motivation (b = 0.83; P < .001) at T1. Individuals undergoing a baseline (vs annual) scan were more ready to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

During the brief window between registering for LCS and receiving the results, the authors observed that very few participants quit smoking, but a significant proportion improved on readiness and motivation to quit, particularly among individuals who were undergoing their first scan and those who were extremely worried about lung cancer. These results indicate that providing evidence-based tobacco treatment can build upon this teachable moment.

6-Year Risk of Developing Lung Cancer in Spain: Analysis by Autonomous Communities

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been proposed as a strategy to reduce lung cancer mortality. Since LDCT has side effects there is a need to carefully select the target population for screening programmes. Because in Spain health competences are transferred to the seventeen Autonomous Communities (ACs), the present paper aims to identify individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer in the different ACs.

METHODS

We used the 2011-2012 data of the Spanish National Interview Health Survey (n=21,006) to estimate the proportion of individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer using a 6-year prediction model (PLCO_m2012). This proportion was then extrapolated into absolute figures for the Spanish population, using the population census data of 2018 from the National Institute of Statistics.

RESULTS

The proportion of individuals aged 50-74 with a risk of lung cancer ≥2% was 9.5% (15.9% in men, 3.5% in women). This proportion ranged from 6.6% in Región de Murcia to 12.7% in Andalucía and 13.0% in Extremadura. When extrapolated to the Spanish population, it was estimated that a total of 1,341,483 individuals may have a 6-year risk of lung cancer ≥2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first one that evaluated the number of individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer in the different Spanish ACs using a prediction model and selecting people with a 6-year risk ≥2%. Further studies should assess the cost and effectiveness associated to the implementation of a lung cancer screening programme to such population.

Predictors of Enrollment of Older Smokers in Six Smoking Cessation Trials in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: The Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration

SIGNIFICANCE

Increased rates of smoking cessation will be essential to maximize the population benefit of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. The NCI's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration includes eight randomized trials, each assessing evidence-based interventions among smokers undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS). We examined predictors of trial enrollment to improve future outreach efforts for cessation interventions offered to older smokers in this and other clinical settings.

METHODS

We included the six SCALE trials that randomized individual participants. We assessed demographics, intervention modalities, LCS site and trial administration characteristics, and reasons for declining.

RESULTS

Of 6,285 trial- and LCS-eligible individuals, 3,897 (62%) declined and 2,388 (38%) enrolled. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, Blacks had higher enrollment rates (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2,1.8) compared to Whites. Compared to 'NRT Only' trials, those approached for 'NRT+prescription medication' trials had higher odds of enrollment (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.7,7.9). Regarding enrollment methods, trials using 'Phone+In Person' methods had higher odds of enrollment (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2,1.9) compared to trials using 'Phone Only' methods. Some of the reasons for declining enrollment included 'too busy' (36.6%), 'not ready to quit' (8.2%), 'not interested in research' (7.7%), and 'not interested in the intervention offered' (6.2%).

CONCLUSION

Enrolling smokers in cessation interventions in the LCS setting is a major priority that requires multiple enrollment and intervention modalities. Barriers to enrollment provide insights that can be addressed and applied to future cessation interventions to improve implementation in LCS and other clinical settings with older smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

We explored enrollment rates and reasons for declining across six smoking cessation trials in the lung cancer screening setting. Offering multiple accrual methods and pharmacotherapy options predicted increased enrollment across trials. Enrollment rates were also greater among Blacks compared to Whites. The findings offer practical information for the implementation of cessation trials and interventions in the lung cancer screening context and other clinical settings, regarding intervention modalities that may be most appealing to older, long-term smokers.

Lung Cancer Screening in a Surgical Lung Cancer Population: Analysis of a Rural, Quaternary, Academic Experience

BACKGROUND

Rural populations face many health disadvantages including higher rates of tobacco use and lung cancer than more populated areas. Given this, we specifically sought to understand the current screening landscape in a cohort of patients with resected lung cancer to help direct improvements in the screening process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our prospective database at a rural, quaternary, academic institution from January 2015 to June 2018. All patients who underwent resection for primary lung cancer were studied to assess the frequency of preoperative low-dose chest computed tomography per accepted guidelines. The intent was to evaluate participant demographics, clinical stage, frequency, and distribution of Lung-RADS reporting.

RESULTS

About 446 patients underwent primary resection, of which 252 were deemed screening-eligible. About 57 (22.6%) underwent low-dose chest computed tomography screening and 195 (77.4%) did not. No significant demographic differences were identified between groups. However, 82.5% (47/57) of the screened patients presented with clinical stage IA disease, compared with 67.1% (131/195) of the nonscreened patients (P = 0.03). Among those screened, 36.8% (21/57) did not have a Lung-RADS score documented despite 52.3% (11/21) of those coming from accredited programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our screening completion rate was only 22.6% of eligible patients and 36.8% of those patients did not have a documented Lung-RADS score. These findings, in combination with the increased rate of diagnosis of stage IA disease, provide compelling reasons to further investigate factors designed to improve access and screening practices at rural institutions.

Implementation of lung cancer screening: what are the main issues?

Two large-scale RCTs have shown computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening to be efficacious in reducing lung cancer mortality (8–24% in men, 26–59% in women). However, lung cancer screening implicitly means personalised and risk-based approaches. Health care systems’ implementation of personalised screening and prevention is still sparse, and likely to be of variable quality, because of important remaining uncertainties, which have been incompletely addressed or not at all so far. Further optimisation of lung cancer screening programs is expected to reduce harms and maintain or enhance benefit for eligible European citizens, whilst significantly reducing health care costs. Some main uncertainties (e.g., Risk-based eligibility, Risk-based screening intervals, Volume CT screening, Smoking Cessation, Gender and Sex differences, Cost-Effectiveness) are discussed in this review. 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN (acronym for: Towards INdividually tailored INvitations, screening INtervals and INtegrated co-morbidity reducing strategies in lung cancer screening) is the first multi-centred implementation trial on volume CT lung cancer screening amongst 24,000 males and females, at high risk for developing lung cancer, across five European countries, started in January 2020. Through providing answers to the remaining questions with this trial, many EU citizens will swiftly benefit from this high-quality screening technology, others will face less harms than previously anticipated, and health care costs will be substantially reduced. Implementing a new cancer screening programme is a major task, with many stakeholders and many possible facilitators but also barriers and obstacle.

Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation efforts

Randomized-controlled trials have confirmed substantial reductions in lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening. Evidence on how to integrate smoking cessation support in lung cancer screening is however scarce. This represents a significant gap in the literature, as a combined strategy of lung cancer screening and smoking cessation greatly reduces the mortality risk due to lung cancer and other related comorbidities. In this review, a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar was performed to identify randomized-controlled and observational studies investigating the effect of lung cancer screening trials and integrated cessation interventions on smoking cessation. Of the 236 identified records, we included 32 original publications. Smoking cessation rates in lung cancer screening trials are promising. Especially findings suspicious for lung cancer and referral to a physician might function as a teachable moment to motivate smoking abstinence in current smokers or recent quitters. More intensive, personalized and multi-modality smoking cessation interventions delivered by a clinician appear to be the most successful in influencing smoking behavior. While it is evident that smoking cessation should be incorporated in lung cancer screening, further research is required to ascertain the optimal treatment type, modality, timing, and content of communication including the incorporation of CT results to motivate health behavior change.

[Smoking cessation and lung cancer screening]

Several studies have shown that lung cancer screening, using annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan in a targeted population of smokers and ex-smokers reduces overall and lung cancer specific mortality rates. This form of screening strategy is not currently established for use in France by the French High Authority for Health. Quitting smoking is the most important measure in reducing mortality from lung cancer. The maximum benefit in reducing mortality from lung cancer should be seen through an effective combination of smoking cessation intervention and chest CT screening to identify early, curable disease. However, current data to guide clinicians in the choice of smoking cessation interventions in this specific context are limited due to the small number of randomized studies that have been carried out. The optimal approach to smoking cessation during lung cancer screening needs to be clarified by new studies comparing different motivation strategies, establishing the ideal moment to propose stopping smoking and the most effective therapies to use.

Smoking-Cessation Interventions After Lung Cancer Screening Guideline Change

INTRODUCTION

Recent guideline changes for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography recommend smoking-cessation interventions be done in parallel with screening. The purpose of this study is to determine the post-guideline rates of smoking-cessation interventions among patients eligible and ineligible for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Using electronic health records collected from a large ambulatory care system in northern California between 2010 and 2017, authors identified new patients who were current smokers aged 55-80 years visiting a primary care provider, and grouped patients into lung cancer screening-eligible heavy smokers, screening-ineligible moderate smokers, and screening-ineligible light smokers. Screening-eligible smokers versus screening-ineligible smokers were compared in receipt of smoking-cessation interventions before (2010-2013) and after (2014-2017) the guideline change, overall and by intervention type (formal counseling, informal counseling, pharmacotherapy) using hierarchical generalized linear models. Analyses were conducted in 2018-2019.

RESULTS

After the guideline change, the likelihood of receiving any smoking-cessation intervention (OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.28, 1.61, p<0.05), informal counseling (OR=1.29, 95% CI=1.15, 1.46, p<0.05), and pharmacotherapy (OR=1.24, 95% CI=1.02, 1.50, p<0.05) during a new patient visit significantly increased, with the increase not varying by level of smoking. For formal counseling, the post-guideline increase was greater for screening-eligible heavy smokers (OR=3.15, 95% CI=1.18, 8.36, p<0.05) and moderate smokers (OR=3.58, 95% CI=1.29, 9.95, p<0.05) relative to light smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking-cessation interventions increased after new lung cancer screening guidelines. Given the sizable adverse impacts of smoking on morbidity and mortality, small increases in the implementation of smoking-cessation interventions could have substantial public health benefits.

Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39-61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the "Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)"-a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer-agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached.

6-Year Risk of Developing Lung Cancer in Spain: Analysis by Autonomous Communities

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been proposed as a strategy to reduce lung cancer mortality. Since LDCT has side effects there is a need to carefully select the target population for screening programmes. Because in Spain health competences are transferred to the seventeen Autonomous Communities (ACs), the present paper aims to identify individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer in the different ACs.

METHODS

We used the 2011-2012 data of the Spanish National Interview Health Survey (n=21,006) to estimate the proportion of individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer using a 6-year prediction model (PLCOm2012). This proportion was then extrapolated into absolute figures for the Spanish population, using the population census data of 2018 from the National Institute of Statistics.

RESULTS

The proportion of individuals aged 50-74 with a risk of lung cancer ≥2% was 9.5% (15.9% in men, 3.5% in women). This proportion ranged from 6.6% in Región de Murcia to 12.7% in Andalucía and 13.0% in Extremadura. When extrapolated to the Spanish population, it was estimated that a total of 1,341,483 individuals may have a 6-year risk of lung cancer ≥2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first one that evaluated the number of individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer in the different Spanish ACs using a prediction model and selecting people with a 6-year risk ≥2%. Further studies should assess the cost and effectiveness associated to the implementation of a lung cancer screening programme to such population.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Burden of male hardcore smokers and its characteristics among those eligible for lung cancer screening

Background

There are few data available about hardcore smokers and their behavioral characteristics among the lung cancer screening (LCS) population. The study investigated the burden of hardcore smokers within the LCS population, and determine the characteristics of hardcore smokers using nationally representative data in South Korea.

Methods

We used data from 2007 to 2012 from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. This study enrolled current male smokers aged 55–74 years. Among them, subjects eligible for LCS were defined as these populations with smoking histories of at least 30 PY. Hardcore smoking was defined as smoking >15 cigarettes per day, with no plan to quit, and having made no attempt to quit. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to estimate associations between hardcore smokers and various sociodemographic and other variables.

Results

The proportion of hardcore smokers among those who met LCS eligibility criteria decreased from 2007 to 2012 (from 39.07 to 29.47% of the population) but did not change significantly thereafter (P = 0.2770), and that proportion was consistently 10–15% higher than that of hardcore smokers among all male current smokers. The proportion without any plan to quit smoking decreased significantly from 54.35% in 2007 to 38.31% in 2012. However, the smokers who had made no intentional quit attempt in the prior year accounted for more than half of those eligible for LCS, and the proportion of such smokers did not change significantly during the study period (50.83% in 2007 and 51.03% in 2012). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that hardcore smokers were older (OR = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.09) than non-hardcore smokers. Hardcore smokers exhibited higher proportion of depression (OR = 6.55, 95% CI 1.75–24.61) and experienced extreme stress more frequently (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.13–3.29). Smokers who did not receive smoking cessation education within the past year were significantly more likely to be hardcore smokers (OR = 4.15, 95% CI 1.30–13.22).

Conclusions

It is important to identify a subset of smokers unwilling or minimally motivated to quit within the context of lung cancer screening. Anti-smoking education should be enhanced to influence hardcore smokers’ behavior.

Systematic review of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for older smokers from deprived backgrounds

INTRODUCTION

The associations between smoking prevalence, socioeconomic group and lung cancer outcomes are well established. There is currently limited evidence for how inequalities could be addressed through specific smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) for a lung cancer screening eligible population. This systematic review aims to identify the behavioural elements of SCIs used in older adults from low socioeconomic groups, and to examine their impact on smoking abstinence and psychosocial variables.

METHOD

Systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL up to November 2018 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of SCIs and their impact on relevant outcomes including smoking abstinence, quit motivation, nicotine dependence, perceived social influence and quit determination. Included studies were restricted to socioeconomically deprived older adults who are at (or approaching) eligibility for lung cancer screening. Narrative data synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable, with most studies using self-reported smoking cessation and varying length of follow-up. There were limited data to identify the optimal form of behavioural SCI for the target population. Intense multimodal behavioural counselling that uses incentives and peer facilitators, delivered in a community setting and tailored to individual needs indicated a positive impact on smoking outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Tailored, multimodal behavioural interventions embedded in local communities could potentially support cessation among older, deprived smokers. Further high-quality research is needed to understand the effectiveness of SCIs in the context of lung screening for the target population.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018088956.

HIV Care Initiation: A Teachable Moment for Smoking Cessation?

Introduction

Tobacco use among persons living with HIV represents an important risk factor for poor treatment outcomes, morbidity, and mortality. Thus, efforts designed to inform the development of appropriate smoking cessation programs for this population remains a public health priority. To address this need, a study was conducted to longitudinally assess the relationship between intention to quit smoking and cessation over the 12-month period following initiation of HIV care.

Methods

Patients initiating HIV care at a large inner city safety net clinic were enrolled (n = 378) in a 12-month prospective study. Audio computer-assisted self-interviews were conducted at baseline, and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-enrollment, and HIV-related clinical data were collected from participants' electronic medical records. Variables of interest included intention to quit smoking, 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (biochemically verified), and stage of HIV. Data were collected in Houston, Texas from 2009 to 2015.

Results

The sample was 75% male and 62% Black. Findings indicated that intention to quit smoking increased between baseline and 3 months, and subsequently trended downward from 3 to 12 months. Results from linear and generalized linear mixed models indicated that participants with advanced HIV disease (vs. not advanced) reported significantly (p < .05) higher intention to quit smoking at 3, 6, and 12 months post-study enrollment. A similar though nonsignificant pattern was observed in the smoking abstinence outcome.

Conclusions

HIV treatment initiation appears to be associated with increases in intention to quit smoking thus serves as a potential teachable moment for smoking cessation intervention.

Implications

This study documents significant increases in intention to quit smoking in the 3-month period following HIV care initiation. Moreover, quit intention trended downward following the 3-month follow-up until the 12-month follow-up. In addition, a marked effect for HIV disease stage was observed, whereby participants with advanced HIV disease (vs. those without) experienced a greater increase in intention to quit. HIV treatment initiation appears to be associated with increases in intention to quit smoking, thus serves as a crucial teachable moment for smoking cessation intervention for people living with HIV.

Smoking cessation behaviors among older U.S. adults

Smoking cessation is a critical component of cancer prevention among older adults (age ≥ 65 years). Understanding smoking cessation behaviors among older adults can inform clinical and community efforts to increase successful cessation. We provide current, national prevalence estimates for smoking cessation behaviors among older adults, including interest in quitting, quitting attempts, quitting successes, receiving advice to quit from a healthcare provider, and use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments. The 2015 National Health Interview Survey and Cancer Control Supplement were used to estimate cigarette smoking status and cessation behaviors among older US adults across selected socio-demographic and health characteristics. We found that four in five older adults who had ever smoked cigarettes had quit and more than half who currently smoked were interested in quitting but fewer than half made a past-year quit attempt. Two-thirds of older adults said that a healthcare provider advised them to quit smoking, but just over one-third who tried to quit used evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments and only one in 20 successfully quit in the past year. Prevalence estimates for smoking cessation behaviors were similar across most characteristics. Our study demonstrates that few older adults, across most levels of characteristics examined, successfully quit smoking, underscoring the importance of assisting smoking cessation efforts. Healthcare providers can help older adults quit smoking by offering or referring evidence-based cessation treatments. States and communities can implement population-based interventions including tobacco price increases, comprehensive smoke-free policies, high-impact tobacco education media campaigns, and barrier-free access to evidence-based tobacco cessation counseling and medications.

•

Smoking cessation among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) is key to cancer prevention.

•

More than half of older adults who currently smoked were interested in quitting.

•

Only one in 20 older adults successfully quit smoking in the past year.

•

Only a third of older adults who tried to quit used a proven cessation treatment.

•

Clinical and community efforts can boost successful cessation among older adults.

Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand.

RESULTS

Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.

Awareness and interest in lung cancer screening among current and former smokers: findings from the ITC United States Survey

PURPOSE

To examine the awareness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among a population of current and former smokers using a nationally representative sample from the United States.

METHODS

Data for this study come from Wave 9 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) United States Survey, conducted between 2013 and 2015. Among respondents age ≥ 40 (n = 1145), a 50% random sample were asked a series of questions pertaining to lung cancer screening. This study examines awareness and screening behaviors in relationship to demographic characteristics of respondents, health beliefs, psychosocial behaviors, and smoking behaviors. Descriptive tables and χ² tests were used to examine the association between those who were aware and unaware. Logistic regression analyses were conducted, stratified on respondents' smoking status. Data were weighed to be representative of the current smoking population in the US.

RESULTS

Overall, 52% of current and former smokers reported being aware of lung cancer screening. Among the group with no prior screening, 80.6% said they would take a lung cancer screening exam if recommended by their physician. In the multivariate models, former smokers had significantly greater awareness of lung cancer screening compared to current smokers [odds ratio 1.42 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 1.97)].

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of LDCT lung cancer screening was lower among current smokers compared to former smokers. Most smokers who had not ever been screened said they would have lung cancer screening if it were recommended by their physician, demonstrating the need for healthcare providers to encourage those eligible for screening to take the test.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Combining smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening: A systematic review

Providing smoking cessation treatment with annual low dose CT (LDCT) screening offers an opportunity to reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the optimal approach for delivering cessation interventions in the LDCT screening context is unknown. We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a control group testing a smoking cessation intervention among adults undergoing LDCT screening through May 1, 2018 using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers independently reviewed each study to assess eligibility and extracted information using pre-specified protocols for included studies. Given significant differences in the interventions in each study, meta-analyses for the included studies could not be performed. Of 2513 identified studies, 9 met inclusion criteria. Five of the included studies were randomized controlled trials while 4 were observational studies with a control group. Studies were of varying quality, but overall were of poor to fair quality with significant potential for bias and limited generalizability. Based on the available studies, there was insufficient data to suggest a particular approach to smoking cessation counseling in the LDCT screening setting. While no studies compared combined pharmacotherapy and counseling to counseling alone or compared the various pharmacologic agents, we identified several studies underway investigating new approaches during LDCT screening. The optimal strategy for smoking cessation in patients undergoing LDCT screening remains unclear. Future studies should focus on evaluating effectiveness and implementation of combined counseling and pharmacotherapy to optimize smoking cessation during LDCT screening.

Capitalizing on a teachable moment: Development of a targeted self-help smoking cessation intervention for patients receiving lung cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the current study was to develop and examine the feasibility and acceptability of a self-help smoking cessation intervention targeted to the teachable moment of smokers undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a multi-phase qualitative approach, including focus groups (N = 15) and learner verification interviews (N = 16) to develop a targeted intervention for patients receiving a LDCT screening, by extending and modifying a previously validated, self-help intervention. The new intervention was then tested in a feasibility study for acceptability and receptivity by smokers (N = 18) receiving a LDCT screening.

RESULTS

The main themes that emerged from the focus group findings included a need to address the counterproductive thoughts regarding a negative lung screen result, the desire to enjoy a healthy and smoke-free retirement, the need to increase self-efficacy regarding smoking cessation, and the desire to see statistics regarding survival after quitting smoking. Learner verification findings showed that participants responded favorably to most booklet and pamphlet changes. Minor changes were made to improve comprehension and enhance self-efficacy. Formative findings led to the development of a new initial booklet titled, "Lung Cancer Screening & Quitting Smoking: Taking Control of Your Health," as well as modifications of the existing self-help cessation intervention. The intervention was designed to be initiated at the LDCT appointment, prior to receipt of scan results, and with minimal disruption of clinic work-flow. Results from the feasibility study indicated that acceptability and satisfaction with the new intervention were high.

CONCLUSION

A validated self-help smoking-cessation intervention was modified for smokers receiving LDCT screening for lung cancer based on formative research guided by the teachable moment concept. The new intervention is ready for testing in a randomized controlled trial.

Interest in lifestyle advice at lung cancer screening: Determinants and preferences

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening could be a 'teachable moment' for behaviour change. Little is known about how advice about smoking cessation, or other behavioural cancer risk factors, would be received in this setting.

METHODS

Using a population-based survey of 459 English adults (current smokers and recent quitters aged 50-75) we assessed willingness to receive lifestyle advice (about smoking, diet, weight, physical activity, alcohol consumption) at lung screening. Additional items assessed whether advice should be provided following abnormal screening results, the potential impact of advice on screening uptake, and preferred timing of advice.

RESULTS

Overall, 64% (n = 292) of participants were willing to receive lifestyle advice at lung screening. A greater proportion of participants were willing to receive advice in a scenario where results required further investigation (83%; p < 0.01). However, 14% indicated the provision of lifestyle advice would make them less willing to attend lung screening. Non-White ethnicity and greater cancer risk factor awareness were associated with willingness to receive advice (p < 0.05). Half of smokers (51%) were willing to receive cessation advice. There was also interest in advice about diet (47%), weight (43%), physical activity (32%), and alcohol consumption (17%) among people not meeting current recommendations for these behaviours. There was a preference for advice to be delivered at the screening appointment (38%, n = 108) over other time-points.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung screening may offer an opportunity to provide advice about behavioural cancer risk factors. Future work should consider how to deliver effective interventions in this setting to support behaviour change, without affecting screening uptake.

Determinants of motivation to quit in smokers screened for the early detection of lung cancer: a qualitative study

Background

The promotion of smoking cessation within lung cancer screening could lead to benefits for smoking-related disease and improve cost-effectiveness of screening. Little is known about how smokers respond to lung cancer screening and how this impacts smoking behaviour. We aimed to understand how lung cancer screening influences individual motivations about smoking, including in those who have stopped smoking since screening.

Methods

Thirty one long-term smokers aged 51–74 took part in semi-structured interviews about smoking. They had been screened with the EarlyCDT-Lung Test (13 positive result; 18 negative) as part of the Early Cancer Detection Test Lung Cancer Scotland Study. They were purposively sampled for interview based on their self-reported post-screening smoking behaviour. Eleven participants had stopped smoking since screening. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Two key overarching themes were interpretations of screening test results and emotional responses to those interpretations. Participants’ understanding of the risk implied by their test result was often inaccurate, for example a negative result interpreted as an ‘all-clear’ from lung cancer and a positive result as meaning lung cancer would definitely develop. Those interpretations led to emotional responses (fear, shock, worry, relief, indifference) influencing motivations about smoking. Other themes included a wake-up call causing changes in perceived risk of smoking-related disease, a feeling that now is the time to stop smoking and family influences. There was no clear pattern in smoking motivations in those who received positive or negative test results. Of those who had stopped smoking, some cited screening experiences as the sole motivation, some cited screening along with other coinciding factors, and others cited non-screening reasons. Cues to change were experienced at different stages of the screening process. Some participants indicated they underwent screening to try and stop smoking, while others expressed little or no desire to stop.

Conclusions

We observed complex and individualised motivations about smoking following lung cancer screening. To be most effective, smoking cessation support in this context should explore understanding of screening test results and may need to be highly tailored to individual emotional responses to screening.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6211-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[China National Lung Cancer Screening Guideline with Low-dose Computed Tomography (2018 version)]

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in China. The results from a randomized controlled trial using annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in specific high-risk groups demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality. The aim of tihs study is to establish the China National lung cancer screening guidelines for clinical practice.

METHODS

The China lung cancer early detection and treatment expert group (CLCEDTEG) established the China National Lung Cancer Screening Guideline with multidisciplinary representation including 4 thoracic surgeons, 4 thoracic radiologists, 2 medical oncologists, 2 pulmonologists, 2 pathologist, and 2 epidemiologist. Members have engaged in interdisciplinary collaborations regarding lung cancer screening and clinical care of patients with at risk for lung cancer. The expert group reviewed the literature, including screening trials in the United States and Europe and China, and discussed local best clinical practices in the China. A consensus-based guidelines, China National Lung Cancer Screening Guideline (CNLCSG), was recommended by CLCEDTEG appointed by the National Health and Family Planning Commission, based on results of the National Lung Screening Trial, systematic review of evidence related to LDCT screening, and protocol of lung cancer screening program conducted in rural China.

RESULTS

Annual lung cancer screening with LDCT is recommended for high risk individuals aged 50-74 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past five years. Individualized decision making should be conducted before LDCT screening. LDCT screening also represents an opportunity to educate patients as to the health risks of smoking; thus, education should be integrated into the screening process in order to assist smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

A lung cancer screening guideline is recommended for the high-risk population in China. Additional research , including LDCT combined with biomarkers, is needed to optimize the approach to low-dose CT screening in the future.

Current Smokers' Preferences for Receiving Cessation Information in a Lung Cancer Screening Setting

The purpose of this study was to identify current smokers' communication format preferences for receiving smoking cessation information in a lung cancer screening setting. A cross-sectional correlational design using survey methodology with 159 screening-eligible current smokers was the method used. Data was dichotomized (digital versus traditional preference) and analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression. Race was a statistically significant predictor with White participants having four times greater odds of reporting preference for a digital format for receiving smoking cessation information such as social media and/or supportive text messages (OR: 4.06; p = 0.004). Lung cancer screening is a new venue where current long-term smokers can be offered information about smoking cessation while they are engaging in a health-promoting behavior and potentially more likely to contemplate quitting. It is important to consider the communication format preference of current smokers to support cessation uptake. This study is the first to examine communication format preference of current smokers in the context of the lung cancer screening venue. Key differences noted by race support the need for further research examining multiple formats of communication with efforts to maximize options in the cancer screening setting.

Smoking-related health beliefs and smoking behavior in the National Lung Screening Trial

Understanding the association between smoking-related health beliefs and smoking cessation in the context of lung screening is important for effective cessation treatment. The purpose of the current study is to explore how current smokers' self-reported smoking-related health cognitions (e.g., self-efficacy) and emotions (e.g., worry) are related to cessation. This study utilized longitudinal data from current smokers (age 55-74) in a sub-study of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; 2002-2006; N = 2738). Logistic regression analyses examined associations of cessation at last assessment with smoking-related health cognitions and emotions, demographics, and two-way interactions among smoking-related health cognition and emotion variables, gender, and age. Over 37% (n = 1028) of smokers had quit at their last assessment of smoking status. Simple logistic regressions showed the likelihood of quitting was greater among participants reporting higher perceived severity of smoking-related diseases (OR = 1.17, p = .04), greater self-efficacy for quitting (OR = 1.32, p < .001), and fewer perceived barriers to quitting (OR = 0.82, p = .01). Likelihood of quitting was lower among non-Hispanic Black participants (versus non-Hispanic White participants) (OR = 0.68, p = .04) and higher among older participants (OR = 1.03, p = .002). Multiple logistic regression showed that participants reporting greater self-efficacy for quitting (B = 0.09, p = .05), fewer perceived barriers to quitting (B = -0.22, p = .01), and who were older (B = 0.03, p < .01) were more likely to quit smoking. These results suggest that, among heavy smokers undergoing lung screening, smoking-related health cognitions and emotions are associated with smoking cessation. These health beliefs must be considered an integral component of cessation in screening settings.

Project reach: Piloting a risk-tailored smoking cessation intervention for lung screening

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention for lung screening patients. Participants (N = 39) were enrolled in a single-arm pilot study of a four-session telephone-based intervention. Self-report measures were completed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. Participants were long-term smokers; 62 percent were not motivated to quit. Twenty-three percent attempted quitting, 29 percent decreased their smoking, and 11 percent reported abstinence. Confidence increased (p < .001) and there were trends toward increased importance (p = .09) and comparative disease risk (p = .02). This intervention was acceptable and associated with improvements in smoking-related beliefs and behaviors.

An integrated digital/clinical approach to smoking cessation in lung cancer screening: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Delivering effective tobacco dependence treatment that is feasible within lung cancer screening (LCS) programs is crucial for realizing the health benefits and cost savings of screening. Large-scale trials and systematic reviews have demonstrated that digital cessation interventions (i.e. web-based and text message) are effective, sustainable over the long-term, scalable, and cost-efficient. Use of digital technologies is commonplace among older adults, making this a feasible approach within LCS programs. Use of cessation treatment has been improved with models that proactively connect smokers to treatment rather than passive referrals. Proactive referral to cessation treatment has been advanced through healthcare systems changes such as modifying the electronic health record to automatically link smokers to treatment.

Methods

This study evaluates the impact of a proactive enrollment strategy that links LCS-eligible smokers with an evidence-based intervention comprised of a web-based (WEB) program and integrated text messaging (TXT) in a three-arm randomized trial with repeated measures at one, three, six, and 12 months post randomization. The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed abstinence at 12 months post randomization. We will randomize 1650 smokers who present for a clinical LCS to: (1) a usual care control condition (UC) which consists of Ask–Advise–Refer; (2) a digital (WEB + TXT) cessation intervention; or (3) a digital cessation intervention combined with tobacco treatment specialist (TTS) counseling (WEB + TXT + TTS).

Discussion

The scalability and sustainability of a digital intervention may represent the most cost-effective and feasible approach for LCS programs to proactively engage large numbers of smokers in effective cessation treatment. We will also evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of adding proven clinical intervention provided by a TTS. We expect that a combined digital/clinical intervention will yield higher quit rates than digital alone, but that it may not be as cost-effective or feasible for LCS programs to implement. This study is innovative in its use of interoperable, digital technologies to deliver a sustainable, scalable, high-impact cessation intervention and to facilitate its integration within clinical practice. It will add to the growing knowledge base about the overall effectiveness of digital interventions and their role in the healthcare delivery system.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03084835. Registered on 9 March 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2312-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Proactive Telephone-Delivered Risk Communication Intervention for Smokers Participating in Lung Cancer Screening: A Pilot Feasibility Trial

Introduction: Many barriers exist to integrating smoking cessation into delivery of lung cancer screening including limited provider time and patient misconceptions.

Aims: To demonstrate that proactive outreach from a telephone counsellor outside of the patient's usual care team is feasible and acceptable to patients.

Methods: Smokers undergoing lung cancer screening were approached for a telephone counselling study. Patients agreeing to participate in the intervention (n = 27) received two telephone counselling sessions. A 30-day follow-up evaluation was conducted, which also included screening participants receiving usual care (n = 56).

Results/Findings: Most (89%) intervention participants reported being satisfied with the proactive calls, and 81% reported the sessions were helpful. Use of behavioural cessation support programs in the intervention group was four times higher (44%) compared to the usual care group (11%); Relative Risk (RR) = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.7 to 9.9), and seven-day abstinence in the intervention group was double (19%) compared to the usual care group (7%); RR = 2.6; 95% CI: 0.8 to 8.9).

Conclusions: This practical telephone-based approach, which included risk messages clarifying continued risks of smoking in the context of screening results, suggests such messaging can boost utilisation of evidence-based tobacco treatment, self-efficacy, and potentially increase the likelihood of successful quitting.

Impact of low-dose CT screening on smoking cessation among high-risk participants in the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial

Background

Smoking cessation was examined among high-risk participants in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) Pilot Trial of low-dose CT screening.

Methods

High-risk individuals aged 50–75 years who completed baseline questionnaires were randomised to CT screening (intervention) or usual care (no screening control). Smoking habit was determined at baseline using self-report. Smokers were asked whether they had quit smoking since joining UKLS at T₁ (2 weeks after baseline scan results or control assignment) and T₂ (up to 2 years after recruitment). Intention-to-treat (ITT) regression analyses were undertaken, adjusting for baseline lung cancer distress, trial site and sociodemographic variables.

Results

Of a total 4055 individuals randomised to CT screening or control, 1546 were baseline smokers (759 intervention, 787 control). Smoking cessation rates were 8% (control n=36/479) versus 14% (intervention n=75/527) at T₁ and 21% (control n=79/377) versus 24% (intervention n=115/488) at T₂. ITT analyses indicated that the odds of quitting among screened participants were significantly higher at T₁ (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.64, p<0.001) and T₂ (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.18, p=0.003) compared with control. Intervention participants who needed additional clinical investigation were more likely to quit in the longer term compared with the control group (aOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.22, p=0.007) and those receiving a negative result (aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.84, p<0.001).

Conclusions

CT lung cancer screening for high-risk participants presents a teachable moment for smoking cessation, especially among those who receive a positive scan result. Further behavioural research is needed to evaluate optimal strategies for integrating smoking cessation intervention with stratified lung cancer screening.

Trial registration number

Results, ISRCTN 78513845

The Prevalence of Tobacco Use at Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States, 2013

We explored tobacco use across federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and compared data on state-level tobacco use between FQHC patients and the general population. We used data from the Uniform Data System (UDS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to generate estimates of 2013 prevalence of tobacco use among adults aged 18 years or older. According to UDS data, the overall prevalence of tobacco use was 25.8% in FQHCs compared with 20.6% in the general population represented by BRFSS data, an average of 5.2 percentage points (range, −4.9 to 20.9) higher among FQHCs. Among FQHCs, the burden of tobacco use and the opportunity for offering cessation assistance is substantial.

Implementing lung cancer screening: the US experience

The reduced lung cancer mortality observed with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has led to annual screening in the United States as a covered benefit by both private insurers and the federal health insurance programme, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Reimbursement for screening requires data submission to a federal registry on all individuals, whether privately or federally insured. Data must document individual patient eligibility as well as shared decision-making regarding the benefits and risks of LDCT screening, smoking cessation counselling, and the importance of annual screening. Beyond these requirements lie opportunities to maximise the benefits of screening in the radiology setting. Individuals eligible for screening account for a minority of those diagnosed with lung cancer in the US; the evidence needed to improve patient selection must be collected systematically for both screen-detected and incidentally detected lung nodules. Current nodule management and tracking guidelines reduce the false-positive rates observed in the NLST, but fall short in their ability to correctly classify nodules as benign or malignant. Smoking cessation is inadequately managed in most busy clinician practices. As a common nidus for tobacco-associated lung diseases, imagers are uniquely poised to collect the longitudinal data to better inform screening eligibility and to improve indeterminate nodule management, while maximising the setting of screening to motivate and provide smoking cessation. By re-engineering the notion of imaging practice, radiologists can be major contributors to lung cancer early detection and mortality reduction.

Terminate lung cancer (TLC) study-A mixed-methods population approach to increase lung cancer screening awareness and low-dose computed tomography in Eastern Kentucky

For low dose CT lung cancer screening to be effective in curbing disease mortality, efforts are needed to overcome barriers to awareness and facilitate uptake of the current evidence-based screening guidelines. A sequential mixed-methods approach was employed to design a screening campaign utilizing messages developed from community focus groups, followed by implementation of the outreach campaign intervention in two high-risk Kentucky regions. This study reports on rates of awareness and screening in intervention regions, as compared to a control region.