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

Projected effectiveness of lung cancer screening and concurrent smoking cessation support in the Netherlands

Background

The NELSON trial demonstrated a 24% intention-to-screen reduction in lung cancer mortality from regular screening with low-dose computed tomography. Implementation efforts in Europe are ongoing, but still await country-specific and NELSON-adapted estimates of the benefits and harms of screening.

Methods

We use the MISCAN-Lung microsimulation model, calibrated to individual-level outcomes from the NELSON trial, to estimate the effectiveness under 100% compliance of biennial lung cancer screening with concomitant smoking cessation support for Dutch cohorts 1942-1961. The model simulates smoking behaviour, lung cancer incidence and the effects of screening and smoking cessation on lung- and other-cause mortality.

Findings

We find biennial screening with eligibility criteria equal to those of the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN implementation trial to reduce lung cancer mortality by 16.9% among the eligible population, equivalent to 1076 LC deaths prevented per year in the next two decades. Eligible individuals constitute 21.5% of the cohorts studied, and stand to face 61% of the projected lung cancer mortality burden in the absence of screening. 10.3 life-years are gained per prevented LC death, for 14.9 screens per life year gained. Concomitant smoking cessation interventions may increase the expected gains in life years from screening by up to 20%.

Interpretation

Policy makers should imminently consider the implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe, paired with effective smoking cessation interventions. Smoking cessation interventions on their own are not estimated to yield a gain in remaining life expectancy of the magnitude offered by even a single CT screen.

Funding

European UnionHorizon 2020 grant 848294: 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN.

Strategies to Improve Smoking Cessation for Participants in Lung Cancer Screening Program: Analysis of Factors Associated with Smoking Cessation in Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS)

PURPOSE

Smoking cessation intervention is one of the key components of successful lung cancer screening program. We investigated the effectiveness and related factors of smoking cessation services provided to the participants in a population-based lung cancer screening trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a nationwide, multi-center lung cancer screening trial that evaluates the feasibility of implementing population-based lung cancer screening. All 5,144 current smokers who participated in the K-LUCAS received a mandatory smoking cessation counseling. Changes in smoking status were followed up using a telephone survey in 6 months after lung cancer screening participation. The lung cancer screening's impact on smoking cessation is analyzed by variations in the smoking cessation interventions provided in screening units.

RESULTS

Among 4,136 survey responders, participant's motivation to quit smoking increased by 9.4% on average after lung cancer screening. After 6 months from the initial screening, 24.3% of participants stopped smoking, and 10.6% of participants had not smoked continuously for at least 6 months after screening. Over 80% of quitters stated that participation in lung cancer screening motivated them to quit smoking. Low-cost public smoking cessation program combined with lung cancer screening increased the abstinence rates. The smokers were three times more likely to quit smoking when the smoking cessation counseling was provided simultaneously with low-dose computed tomography screening results than when provided separately.

CONCLUSION

A mandatory smoking cessation intervention integrated with screening result counselling by a physician after participation in lung cancer screening could be effective for increasing smoking cessation attempts.

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation.

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Genomic medicine to reduce tobacco and related disorders: Translation to precision prevention and treatment

Genomic medicine can enhance prevention and treatment. First, we propose that advances in genomics have the potential to enhance assessment of disease risk, improve prognostic predictions, and guide treatment development and application. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) has emerged as an area of active research. The pathway from genomic discovery to implementation is an iterative process. Second, we provide examples on how genomic medicine has the potential to solve problems in prevention and treatment using two examples: Lung cancer screening and evidence-based tobacco treatment are both under-utilized and great opportunities for genomic interventions. Third, we discuss the translational process for developing genomic interventions from evidence to implementation by presenting a model to evaluate genomic evidence for clinical implementation, mechanisms of genomic interventions, and patient desire for genomic interventions. Fourth, we present potential challenges in genomic interventions including a great need for evidence in all diverse populations, little evidence on treatment algorithms, challenges in accommodating a dynamic evidence base, and implementation challenges in real world clinical settings. Finally, we conclude that research to identify genomic markers that are associated with smoking cessation success and the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments is needed to empower people of all diverse ancestry. Importantly, genomic data can be used to help identify patients with elevated risk for nicotine addiction, difficulty quitting smoking, favorable response to specific pharmacotherapy, and tobacco-related health problems.

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.

Accelerating integration of tobacco use treatment in the context of lung cancer screening: Relevance and application of implementation science to achieving policy and practice

Based on the findings from the National Lung Screening Trial, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) among high-risk adults. Approximately 54% of individuals seeking LCS report current cigarette smoking. Effective smoking cessation interventions, offered at the time of LCS, enhances the health benefits of screening that are attributable to reductions in lung cancer overall and tobacco-related mortality. Considering these data, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) 2015 decision to cover LCS with LDCT required that radiology imaging facilities make tobacco cessation interventions available for people who smoke. In February 2022, CMS reversed their 2015 coverage requirement for delivering tobacco use treatment at the time of LDCT; CMS retained the requirement for counseling during the shared decision-making visit prior to the exam. The policy change does not diminish the importance of offering high-quality tobacco cessation services in conjunction with routine LDCT for LCS. However, LCS programs face a range of barriers to implementing tobacco use treatment in their settings. As a result, implementation has lagged. Closing the "evidence to practice" gap is the focus of implementation science, a field that offers a set of rigorous methods and a systematic approach to identifying and overcoming contextual barriers to implementing evidence-based guidelines in a range of clinical settings. In this paper, we describe how implementation science frameworks and methods can be used to help guide LCS programs in their efforts to integrate tobacco use treatment and discuss policy changes needed to further facilitate the delivery of TUT as an essential component of the LCS process.

Assessment and Counseling Gaps Among Former Smokers Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening in US Adults : A Cross-Sectional Analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), 2013-2018

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) for former and current smokers requires that current smokers are counseled on tobacco treatment. In the USA, over 4 million former smokers are estimated to be eligible for LCS based on self-report for "not smoking now." Tobacco use and exposure can be measured with the biomarker cotinine, a nicotine metabolite reflecting recent exposure.

OBJECTIVE

To examine predictors of tobacco use and exposure among self-reported former smokers eligible for LCS.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Former smokers eligible for LCS (n = 472).

MAIN MEASURES

Recent tobacco use was defined as reported tobacco use in the past 5 days or a cotinine level above the race/ethnic cut points for tobacco use. Recent tobacco exposure was measured among former smokers without recent tobacco use and defined as having a cotinine level above 0.05 ng/mL.

KEY RESULTS

One in five former smokers eligible for LCS, totaling 1,416,485 adults, had recent tobacco use (21.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8%, 27.0%), with about a third each using cigarettes, e-cigarettes, or other tobacco products. Among former smokers without recent tobacco use, over half (53.0%, 95% CI: 44.6%, 61.4%) had cotinine levels indicating recent tobacco exposure. Certain subgroups had higher percentages for tobacco use or exposure, especially those having quit within the past 3 years or living with a household smoker.

CONCLUSIONS

Former smokers eligible for LCS should be asked about recent tobacco use and exposure and considered for cotinine testing. Nearly 1.5 million "former smokers" eligible for LCS may be current tobacco users who have been missed for counseling. The high percentage of "passive smokers" is at least double that of the general nonsmoking population. Counseling about the harms of tobacco use and exposure and resources is needed.

Smoking Cessation by Phone Counselling in a Lung Cancer Screening Program: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study

Introduction

Smoking cessation integration within lung cancer screening programs is challenging. Currently, phone counselling is available across Canada for individuals referred by healthcare workers and by self-referral. We compared quit rates after phone counselling interventions between participants who self-refer, those referred by healthcare workers, and those referred by a lung cancer screening program.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of participants referred to provincial smoking cessation quit line in contemporaneous cohorts: self-referred participants, healthcare worker referred, and those referred by a lung cancer screening program if they were still actively smoking at the time of first contact. Baseline, covariates (sociodemographic information, smoking history, and history of mental health disorder) and quit intentions (stage of change, readiness for change, previous use of quit programs, and previous quit attempts) were compared among the three cohorts. Our primary outcome was defined as self-reported 30-day abstinence rates at 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify whether group assignment was associated with higher quit rates.

Results

Participants referred by a lung cancer screening program had low quit rates (12%, 95% CI: 5–19) at six months despite the use of phone counselling. Compared to patients who were self-referred to the smoking cessation phone helpline, individuals referred by a lung cancer screening program were much less likely to quit (adjusted OR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17–0.8), whereas those referred by healthcare workers were twice as likely to quit (adjusted OR 2.16 (1.3–3.58)) even after adjustment for differences in smoking intensity and quit intentions.

Conclusions

Phone counselling alone has very limited benefit in a lung cancer screening program. Participants differ significantly from those who are otherwise referred by healthcare workers. This study underlines the importance of a dedicated and personalized tobacco treatment program within every lung cancer screening program. The program should incorporate best practices and encourage treatment regardless of readiness to quit.

Smoking Cessation Training and Treatment: Options for Cancer Centres

Patients who achieve smoking cessation following a cancer diagnosis can experience an improvement in treatment response and lower morbidity and mortality compared to individuals who continue to smoke. It is therefore imperative for publicly funded cancer centres to provide appropriate training and education for healthcare providers (HCP) and treatment options to support smoking cessation for their patients. However, system-, practitioner-, and patient-level barriers exist that hamper the integration of evidence-based cessation programs within publicly funded cancer centres. The integration of evidence-based smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy into cancer care facilities could have a significant effect on smoking cessation and cancer treatment outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to describe the elements of a learning health system for smoking cessation, implemented and scaled up in community settings that can be adapted for ambulatory cancer clinics. The core elements include appropriate workflows enabled by technology, thereby improving both practitioner and patient experience and effectively removing practitioner-level barriers to program implementation. Integrating the smoking cessation elements of this program from primary care to cancer centres could improve smoking cessation outcomes in patients attending cancer clinics.

Impact of Joint Lung Cancer Screening and Cessation Interventions Under the New Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening recommendations expanding its eligibility. As more smokers become eligible, cessation interventions at the point of screening could enhance the benefits. Here, we evaluate the effects of joint screening and cessation interventions under the new recommendations.

METHODS

A validated lung cancer natural history model was used to estimate lifetime number of low-dose computed tomography screens, percentage ever screened, lung cancer deaths, lung cancer deaths averted, and life-years gained for the 1960 U.S. birth cohort aged 45 to 90 years (4.5 million individuals). Screening occurred according to the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations with varying uptake (0%, 30%, 100%), with or without a cessation intervention at the point of screening with varying effectiveness (15%, 100%).

RESULTS

Screening 30% of the eligible population according to the 2021 criteria with no cessation intervention (USPSTF 2021, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) was estimated to result in 6845 lung cancer deaths averted and 103,725 life-years gained. These represent 28% and 34% increases, respectively, relative to screening according to the 2013 guidelines (USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention). Adding a cessation intervention at the time of the first screen with 15% effectiveness (USPSTF 2021, 30% uptake, with cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness) was estimated to result in 2422 additional lung cancer deaths averted (9267 total, ∼73% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 322,785 life-years gained (∼318% increase). Screening 100% of the eligible according to the 2021 guidelines with no cessation intervention (USPSTF 2021, 100% uptake, without cessation intervention) was estimated to result in 23,444 lung cancer deaths averted (∼337% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 354,330 life-years gained (∼359% increase). Adding a cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness (USPSTF 2021, 100% uptake, with cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness) would result in 31,998 lung cancer deaths averted (∼497% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 1,086,840 life-years gained (∼1309% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Joint screening and cessation interventions would result in considerable lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained. Adding a one-time cessation intervention of modest effectiveness (15%) results in comparable life-years gained as increasing screening uptake from 30% to 100% because while cessation decreases mortality from many causes, screening only reduces lung cancer mortality. This simulation indicates that incorporating cessation programs into screening practice should be a priority as it can maximize overall benefits.

Low Rates of Lung Cancer Screening Referrals in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Correlational Study

People living with HIV (PLWH) have an increased risk of lung cancer compared to the general population. In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released their lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines. However, the impact of these guidelines has not been well established in PLWH. The objective of this retrospective descriptive study is to evaluate the frequency of lung cancer screening referrals and factors associated with LCS referrals using the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines in at-risk PLWH. We collected demographic and clinical information on PLWH from electronic medical records from July 2016 to July 2018. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and Fisher’s exact tests were used for analysis. Only 14% of patients who met 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines were referred for screening. Patients who received a referral were more likely to have received tobacco cessation counseling. Patients who received and completed a referral were more likely to have hepatitis C infection. Quality improvement strategies are needed to improve rates of LCS in PLWH.

Emerging digital technologies in cancer treatment, prevention, and control

The very first issue of the journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine (TBM) was dedicated, in part, to the theme of Health Information Technology as a platform for evidence implementation. The topic was timely: legislation in the USA was passed with the intent of stimulating the adoption of electronic health records; mobile smartphones, tablets, and other devices were gaining traction in the consumer market, while members within the Society of Behavioral Medicine were gaining scientific understanding on how to use these tools to effect healthy behavior change. For the anniversary issue of TBM, we evaluated the progress and problems associated with deploying digital health technologies to support cancer treatment, prevention, and control over the last decade. We conducted a narrative review of published literature to identify the role that emerging digital technologies may take in achieving national and international objectives in the decade to come. We tracked our evaluation of the literature across three phases in the cancer control continuum: (a) prevention, (b) early detection/screening, and (c) treatment/survivorship. From our targeted review and analyses, we noted that significant progress had been made in the adoption of digital health technologies in the cancer space over the past decade but that significant work remains to be done to integrate these technologies effectively into the cancer control systems needed to improve outcomes equitably across populations. The challenge for the next 10 years is inherently translational.

Lung cancer screening: intention to participate and acceptability among Belgian smokers

OBJECTIVE

Next to the obvious benefits of tobacco-use cessation, lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans has been proposed as a means to lower lung cancer burden. Achieving an impact of any cancer screening program on cancer-specific mortality largely depends on the uptake. The aim of this study was to estimate the acceptability and intention to participate in a lung cancer screening program among Belgian current or former smokers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among adults from the Belgian population. Sampling took place within an existing online panel.

RESULTS

In total, 83.6% of all respondents (n = 2727), including current or former smokers and never smokers, believed that offering lung cancer screening to current or former smokers is a good idea. 84.3% of all current or former smokers (n = 1534) answered that they would likely or very likely participate in a screening program for lung cancer. The majority of current smokers that were willing to be screened said they would also want to receive tobacco-use cessation counseling in parallel with screening (71.8%; n = 486), whereas 9% (n = 61) would decline.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that a Belgian lung cancer screening program would be acceptable and could be well-attended by current or former smokers. Further research should focus on how smokers can be best reached to propose screening, and how tobacco-use cessation counseling can be successfully integrated in a lung cancer screening program.

Assessing information available for health professionals and potential participants on lung cancer screening program websites: a cross-sectional study (Preprint)

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, adjusting the age of screening to 50 years (from 55 years) and reducing the number of pack-years used to estimate total firsthand cigarette smoke exposure to 20 (from 30). With many individuals using the internet to find health care information, it is important to understand what information is available for individuals contemplating lung cancer screening.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the eligibility criteria and information available on lung cancer screening program websites for both health professionals and potential screening participants.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional analysis of 151 lung cancer screening program websites of academic (n=76) and community medical centers (n=75) in the United States with information for health professionals and potential screening participants was conducted in March 2021. Presentation of eligibility criteria for potential screening participants and presence of information available specific to health professionals about lung cancer screening were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included presentation of information about cost and smoking cessation, inclusion of an online risk assessment tool, mention of any clinical guidelines, and use of multimedia to present information.

Results

Eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening was included in nearly all 151 websites (n=142, 94%), as well as age range (n=139, 92.1%) and smoking history (n=141, 93.4%). Age was only consistent with the latest recommendations in 14.5% (n=22) of websites, and no websites had updated smoking history. Half the websites (n=76, 50.3%) mentioned screening costs as related to the type of insurance held. A total of 23 (15.2%) websites featured an online assessment tool to determine eligibility. The same proportion (n=23, 15.2%) hosted information specifically for health professionals. In total, 44 (29.1%) websites referred to smoking cessation, and 46 (30.5%) websites used multimedia to present information, such as short videos or podcasts.

Conclusions

Most websites of US lung cancer screening programs provide information about eligibility criteria, but this is not consistent and has not been updated across all websites following the latest USPSTF recommendations. Online resources require updating to present standardized information that is accessible for all.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence.

CONCLUSION

All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.

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.

Application of Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Atopic Dermatitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are promising treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors for AD treatment via the “Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation” approach. We identified 15 randomized controlled trials comparing oral or topical JAK inhibitors against placebo to treat AD. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and the numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs)/numbers-needed-to-harm (NNHs) were calculated. Patients treated with JAK inhibitors were associated with higher rates of achieving eczema area and severity index-75 (rate ratio (RR): 2.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.20–3.67; I²: 38.9%; NNT = 3.97), Investigator’s Global Assessment response (RR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.26–3.95; I²: 0%; NNT = 5.72), and pruritus numerical rating scale response (RR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.90–3.35; I²: 39.4%; NNT = 4.91) than those treated with placebo. Moreover, patients treated with JAK inhibitors had a higher risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.02–1.28; I²: 52%; NNH = 14.80) but not adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. According to the evidence-based results, JAK inhibitors are potentially effective strategies (certainty of evidence: “moderate”) for treating AD with tolerable side effects (certainty of evidence: “low”). Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is required.

Provision of Smoking Cessation Resources in the Context of In-Person Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective at reducing mortality for high-risk smokers. Mortality benefits go beyond early cancer detection, because shared decision-making (SDM) may present a "teachable moment" to reinforce cessation and provide resources.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How well is smoking cessation performed during LCS SDM encounters, and what patient and provider characteristics are associated with smoking cessation assistance?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of current smokers participating in initial LCS SDM through a multisite program in Seattle, Washington, between 2015-2018. The LCS tracking database and electronic health record were reviewed for demographics, comorbidity data, and clinical encounter information. The primary outcome was provision of a smoking cessation resource, defined as referral to cessation resources, recommendation for nicotine replacement, or prescription for cessation medication. Participant and provider factor associations with the outcome were evaluated using χ² testing and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most of the 423 study participants were men (70%), with a median age of 61 (IQR, 58-66) years and median of 50 (41-72) pack-years of smoking. Only 26% of encounters had documentation consistent with SDM. Thirty-nine percent of participants received at least one smoking cessation resource, and only 5% received both counseling referrals and medication. In a multivariable model, the provision of any smoking cessation resource was half as likely in participants with higher levels of comorbidity (Charlson Index >2; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81), and half as likely if the ordering provider was not the patient's PCP or their specialist (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96).

INTERPRETATION

Overall provision of smoking cessation resources was moderate during SDM encounters for LCS, and lower in patients with more comorbidities and when not performed by the patient's PCP or specialist. Interventions are needed to improve smoking cessation counseling and resource utilization at the time of LCS encounters.

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.

Improving Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Through Incorporating a Video-Based Educational Tool Into Smoking Cessation Counseling

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, but most of those eligible are not referred for screening, and most eligible smokers are not aware of LCS. Smoking cessation counseling may be an opportune time to educate smokers about LCS. Here we investigate the effect of LCS educational information on LDCT utilization and smoking cessation in LCS-eligible patients receiving smoking cessation counseling.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomized 1281 smokers aged 55-80 who underwent smoking cessation services to view a web-based educational video about LCS (n = 1026) or to receive usual care (n = 255). Outcomes included the utilization of chest computed tomographic (CT) scan during 6 months of follow-up, responses to survey questions, and patient-reported abstinence from smoking at 6 months.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six participants (14%) watched the video. Overall, 87 participants (8.5%) in the intervention group underwent any chest CT and 37 (3.6%) underwent LDCT compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in the control group during the 6-month follow-up period (P = .94 and .59, respectively). Among participants who completed watching the video, 27 (18.5%) underwent any chest CT and 13 (8.9%) underwent LDCT, compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in controls during follow-up (P = .0037 and .062, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence from smoking between groups.

CONCLUSION

An LCS educational intervention may be effective in improving utilization of LDCT in eligible individuals who currently smoke at the time of smoking cessation counseling. Further research on the effect of LCS education in the context of smoking cessation counseling is needed.

[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.

Potential Impact of Cessation Interventions at the Point of Lung Cancer Screening on Lung Cancer and Overall Mortality in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for adults aged 55 to 80 years with a greater than or equal to 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. The 50% who are current smokers should be offered cessation interventions, but information about the impact of adding cessation to screening is limited.

METHODS

We used an established lung cancer simulation model to compare the effects on mortality of a hypothetical one-time cessation intervention and annual screening versus annual screening only among screen-eligible individuals born in 1950 or 1960. Model inputs were derived from national data and included smoking history, probability of quitting with and without intervention, lung cancer risk and treatment effectiveness, and competing tobacco-related mortality. We tested the sensitivity of results under different assumptions about screening use and cessation efficacy.

RESULTS

Smoking cessation reduces lung cancer mortality and delays overall deaths versus screening only across all assumptions. For example, if screening was used by 30% of screen-eligible individuals born in 1950, adding an intervention with a 10% quit probability reduces lung cancer deaths by 14% and increases life years gained by 81% compared with screening alone. The magnitude of cessation benefits varied under screening uptake rates, cessation effectiveness, and birth cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions have the potential to greatly enhance the impact of lung cancer screening programs. Evaluation of specific interventions, including costs and feasibility of implementation and dissemination, is needed to determine the best possible strategies and realize the full promise of lung cancer screening.

Incorporating lung cancer screening education into tobacco cessation group counseling

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, yet few people who are eligible for LCS get screened. In the present study, we studied the feasibility of tobacco cessation counselors to inform about LCS during tobacco cessation group counseling.

METHODS

Four tobacco cessation counselors at two different facilities offering group tobacco cessation counseling were trained to administer an educational intervention about LCS. The intervention was administered to 25 participants during May 2019 who completed surveys that assessed how much the information provided helped with understanding various aspects of lung cancer screening including benefits, risks, eligibility criteria, and insurance coverage. The intervention also provided information on how to learn more about LCS and assessed the acceptability of the information.

RESULTS

The median score for understanding of all components of the intervention was 5 ('completely understand'). Most participants (92%) felt that the information provided about LCS was the right amount. Most participants (72%) were aged 55-80 years, the age range for LCS eligibility. Four participants (16%) reported undergoing LCS in the past. When we reanalyzed the subset of participants who reported no prior LCS, the results of surveys were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that it is feasible to train tobacco cessation counselors to educate smokers, attending group tobacco cessation counseling classes, also about LCS. The education provided in this study was both understood and well received by the large majority of smokers surveyed. Further study is needed to understand the effect of LCS education on utilization of LDCT among smokers enrolled in tobacco cessation counseling.