Impact of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Findings on Cigarette Smoking Cessation Among High-Risk Adults Participating in Lung Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Integrating effective smoking cessation strategies for individuals undergoing lung cancer screening stands to significantly increase the impact of lung screening programmes. We assessed the impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) findings on smoking cessation among high-risk adults who currently smoked.

AIMS AND METHODS

13 035 individuals, aged 55-77 years, attended a lung health check appointment, as part of a prospective observational cohort study (the SUMMIT Study), prior to undergoing a baseline LDCT scan. Logistic regressions examined the likelihood of smoking cessation at a 1-year follow-up appointment and its association with LDCT findings.

RESULTS

12.6% (n = 647/5135) of individuals self-reported smoking cessation at 1-year follow-up. Higher odds of quitting were found in those receiving indeterminate pulmonary nodule findings requiring a 3-month interval LDCT (aOR = 1.27; 1.01, 1.61), those with urgent findings requiring referral to secondary care (aOR = 1.55; 1.05, 2.32), and those with a possible new chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis (aOR = 1.60; 1.23, 2.06), compared to those receiving no actionable LDCT findings. Older age, Asian ethnic background, current high smoking intensity, motivation and number of quit attempts, and low nicotine dependence were associated with increased odds of quitting.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals currently smoking, at high lung cancer risk, participating in LDCT screening, and receiving incidental findings requiring a 1-year interval LDCT or primary care follow-up might therefore need additional behavioral support to quit. Tailored communication strategies depending on the severity of the LDCT findings, including additional behavioral support for those with less clinical concerning or negative findings, could increase quit rates and reduce smoking-related morbidity.

IMPLICATIONS

This study reports high odds of self-reported complete smoking cessation in adults who currently smoked after receiving their LDCT findings. Though the impact of specific types of LDCT findings on smoking cessation was positive for high lung cancer risk individuals, reception of incidental findings could potentially be perceived as less severe to encourage individuals who currently smoked to quit. Clearly communicating the severity of LDCT findings along with the delivery of behavioral smoking cessation support targeted to high-risk individuals may increase their chances of complete smoking cessation and reduce lung cancer mortality.

Self-blaming as a barrier to lung cancer screening and smoking cessation programs in Italy. A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) combined with smoking cessation programs is a critical strategy for reducing lung cancer mortality. Understanding the perspectives of cigarette users and former ones on these interventions is essential for enhancing their acceptability and effectiveness. This study aimed to explore, in Italy, the perceptions and experiences of individuals eligible for LCS within the context of a smoking cessation program.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This multicenter qualitative study was conducted in two Italian regions as part of a larger project the Italian League against Cancer promoted. Using purposive sampling, we included (a) cigarette users and former ones who participated in an Italian trial, ITALUNG study, and (b) cigarette users who had been offered individual or group smoking cessation interventions and were theoretically eligible for screening in the following years (aged 50-70, ≥15 pack-years). Data were collected through open-ended semi-structured interviews and focus group meetings and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The data analysis yielded six themes covering participants' views on the interactions between the two types of interventions (screening and smoking cessation program). Across their data, we generated the following themes: (i) depreciation and fatalism toward the risk of smoking, (ii) self-blaming and ethicality, (iii) ambivalent impact of the screening on smoking, (iv) LCS-related information and concerns, (v) teachable and motivating moments, and (vi) non-stigmatizing communication and testimony by professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the importance of avoiding stigma and respecting the dignity of cigarette users in implementing LCS and smoking cessation programs. Clear communication and supportive interactions with healthcare providers are crucial for enhancing the acceptability and effectiveness of these interventions. Future research should focus on quantifying these findings and exploring additional factors influencing the acceptability and effectiveness of combined LCS and smoking cessation programs.

Pulmonary and Cardiac Smoking-Related History Improves Abstinence Rates in an Urban, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use continues to take the lives of many, and targeted interventions can counter this health burden. One possible target population is patients who have had a smoking-related diagnosis, as they may have a greater drive to quit.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether patients with previous cardiac or pulmonary conditions directly attributable to smoking have greater rates of abstinence post-discharge from hospitalization in the CHART-NY trial.

DESIGN

CHART-NY was a randomized comparative effectiveness trial comparing a more intensive versus a less intensive smoking cessation intervention after hospital discharge. We divided the 1618 CHART-NY participants into a smoking-related history group of 597 and a nonsmoking-related history group of 1021 based on cardiac or pulmonary conditions in a retrospective chart review. We conducted chi-squared analyses on baseline characteristics. Using follow-up survey data, we conducted chi-squared analyses on abstinence outcomes and made logistic regression models for the predictive value of smoking-related conditions on abstinence.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1059 and 1084 participants in CHART-NY who completed both 2- and 6-month follow-up surveys respectively.

MAIN MEASURES

Self-reported 30-day abstinence at 2- and 6-month follow-up and survey data for baseline characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

Those abstinent at 6-month follow-up were more likely to have a smoking-attributable history (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.09-1.81). When stratified based on intervention, only the intensive counseling group was significant (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.08-2.17). The regression model using a smoking-related comorbidity score was significant at 6 months (OR = 1.29, p = 0.03), and the multivariate logistic regression model analyzing each smoking-related condition separately demonstrated significance for myocardial infarction at 6 months (OR = 1.66, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

People who smoke who have experienced smoking-related conditions may be more likely to benefit from smoking cessation interventions, especially intensive telephone-based counseling. Multiple conditions had an additive effect in predicting long-term abstinence after intervention, and myocardial infarction had the greatest predictive value.

The pros and cons of lung cancer screening

Several trials have shown that low-dose computed tomography-based lung cancer screening (LCS) allows a substantial reduction in lung cancer-related mortality, carrying the potential for other clinical benefits. There are, however, some uncertainties to be clarified and several aspects to be implemented to optimize advantages and minimize the potential harms of LCS. This review summarizes current evidence on LCS, discussing some of the well-established and potential benefits, including lung cancer (LC)-related mortality reduction and opportunity for smoking cessation interventions, as well as the disadvantages of LCS, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Different perspectives are provided on LCS based on the updated literature. KEY POINTS: Lung cancer is a leading cancer-related cause of death and screening should reduce associated mortality. This review summarizes current evidence related to LCS. Several aspects need to be implemented to optimize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks of LCS.

Smartphone application versus written material for smoking reduction and cessation in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer: a phase II open-label randomised controlled trial

Background

Counseling, nicotine replacement, and other cessation medications have been proven effective in smoking cessation. The wide-scale adoption of smartphones and other mobile devices has opened new possibilities for scalable and personalized smoking cessation approaches. The study investigated whether a smartphone application would be more effective than written material for smoking cessation and reduction in smoking in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer (NCT05630950).

Methods

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 201 current smokers with marked smoking history (smoked ≥15 cigarettes/day for ≥25 years or smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥30 years). Participants were stratified by age and pack-years and randomized in 1:1 fashion to the developed smartphone application (experimental arm) or written material (standard of care). All the subjects underwent LDCT screening. Self-reported smoking cessation at three and six months were the primary endpoints of the study. The smoking-related secondary endpoints of the study were the percentage of individuals who had reduced the number of smoked cigarettes/d from the baseline.

Findings

Between Nov 18, 2022, and Apr 14, 2023, 201 patients were screened at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, of whom all were randomly assigned to smartphone application (n = 101) or written cessation material (n = 100); 200 were included in the full analysis set. Study arms were well-balanced for all the studied demographic factors. Subjects randomized to the smartphone application arm had significantly higher rates for self-reported smoking cessation at three (19.8 versus 7.1%; OR 3.175 CI 95% 1.276-7.899) and six months (18.8 versus 7.1%; OR 2.847 CI 95% 1.137-7.128). In the experimental arm, individuals with a frequent use of the application had a higher chance for smoking cessation at three (p < 0.001) and six months (p = 0.003).

Interpretation

The study showed that the developed smartphone application increases the likelihood for smoking cessation in individuals undergoing lung cancer LDCT screening.

Funding

AstraZeneca, Roche, and Cancer Foundation Finland.

Lung cancer screening: where do we stand?

Lung cancer screening (LCS) programmes have emerged over recent years around the world. LCS programmes present differences in delivery, inclusion criteria and resource allocation. On a national scale, only a few LCS programmes have been fully established, but more are anticipated to follow. Evidence has shown that, in combination with a low-dose chest computed tomography scan, smoking cessation should be offered as part of a LCS programme for improved patient outcomes. Promising tools in LCS include further refined risk prediction models, the use of biomarkers, artificial intelligence and radiomics. However, these tools require further study and clinical validation is required prior to routine implementation.

Impact of smoking cessation duration on lung cancer mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking history is a heterogeneous situation for different populations, and numerous studies suggest that smoking cessation is conducive to reduce the mortality of lung cancer. However, no quantitative meta-analysis regarding smoking cessation duration based on different populations has demonstrated it clearly.

METHODS

We systematically searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scoups) till February 2023. Eligible studies reported the association between lung cancer survival and duration of smoking cessation. Additionally, we stratified the study population according to whether they had lung cancer at the time they quit smoking. Studies were pooled with the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Out of the 11,361 potential studies initially identified, we included 24 studies involving 969,560 individuals in our analysis. Lung cancer mortality varied across two groups: general quitters and peri-diagnosis quitters. For general quitters, those who had quit smoking for less than 10 years exhibited an RR of 0.64 (95% CI [0.55-0.76]), while those who quit for 10-20 years had an RR of 0.33 (0.25-0.43), over 20 years had an RR of 0.16 (0.11-0.24), and never-smokers had an RR at 0.11 (0.07-0.15). Among peri-diagnosis quitters, the 1-year Overall Survival (OS) showed an RR of 0.80 (0.67-0.96), the 2-year OS had an RR of 0.89 (0.80-0.98), the 3-year OS had an RR of 0.93 (0.84-1.03), and the 5-year OS had an RR of 0.85 (0.76-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier and longer smoking cessation is associated with reduced lung cancer mortality, no matter in which cessation stage for two different populations.

Barriers to implementation of smoking cessation support among healthcare professionals in the secondary healthcare sector: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation support (SCS) in the hospital is essential; patients often struggle to maintain quit attempts, which necessitates assistance from healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, unknown barriers can obstruct the implementation of SCS in hospitals. This study aims to uncover barriers to the implementation of SCS in psychiatric, somatic, inpatient, and outpatient hospital settings.

METHODS

In the period from June to September 2021, HCPs in a large secondary care hospital in the Region of Southern Denmark completed an online, cross-sectional study, providing sociodemographic details and listing potential barriers to SCS. They also shared additional barriers in the form of free-text responses. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of free-text responses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 1645 HCPs surveyed, 409 elaborated their response in the free-text field assessing unlisted barriers. Top listed barriers, reported by more than one-third of participants, included: 'lack of time' (45.1%), 'lack of patient motivation' (34.3%), and 'insufficient knowledge on how to support' (32.2%). Free-text responses revealed three barrier-related, which we grouped under the themes of: 'Concerned about the patient', 'Not part of my job', and 'Inappropriate setting'.

CONCLUSIONS

This quantitative and qualitative study identifies barriers to SCS on multiple levels in the hospital setting, i.e. on the patient, provider, and organizational levels. These results can inform healthcare organizations and professionals in the implementation of SCS in routine hospital care.

Immediate smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening: long-term outcomes from two randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Immediate smoking cessation interventions delivered alongside targeted lung health checks (TLHCs) to screen for lung cancer increase self-reported abstinence at 3 months. The impact on longer term, objectively confirmed quit rates remains to be established.

METHODS

We followed up participants from two clinical trials in people aged 55-75 years who smoked and took part in a TLHC. These randomised participants in the TLHC by day of attendance to either usual care (UC) (signposting to smoking cessation services) or an offer of immediate smoking cessation support including pharmacotherapy. In the QuLIT1 trial, this was delivered face to face and in QuLIT2, it was delivered remotely. Follow-up was conducted 12 months after the TLHC by telephone interview with subsequent biochemical verification of smoking cessation using exhaled CO.

RESULTS

430 people were enrolled initially (115 in QuLIT1 and 315 in QuLIT2), with 4 deaths before 12 months leaving 426 (62.1±5.27 years old and 48% women) participants for analysis. At 12 months, those randomised to attend on smoking cessation support intervention days had higher quit rates compared with UC adjusted for age, gender, deprivation, and which trial they had been in; self-reported 7-day point prevalence (20.0% vs 12.8%; adjusted OR (AOR)=1.78; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.89) and CO-verified quits (12.1% vs 4.7%; AOR=2.97; 95% CI 1.38 to 6.90). Those in the intervention arm were also more likely to report having made a quit attempt (30.2% vs UC 18.5%; AOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.15).

CONCLUSION

Providing immediate smoking cessation support alongside TLHC increases long term, biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12455871.

Motivation, acceptability and attitudes toward lung cancer screening among persons who attend a tobacco cessation program: A multicenter survey in Italy

This study aimed to evaluate smoking cessation (SC) motivation and the acceptability of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among people who attend SC programs. A multicenter survey was conducted in the period January-December 2021 involving 197 people who attended group or individual SC courses in Reggio Emilia and Tuscany. Questionnaires, information sheets, and decision aids about the potential benefits and harms of LCS with LDCT were distributed at different time points during the course. The wish to protect own health (66%) was the most frequent reason given for quitting smoking, followed by cigarette dependence (40.6%) and current health problems (30.5%). Half of the participants (56%) considered periodic health checks including LDCT, as an advantageous activity. The great majority of participants were in favor of LCS (92%), with only 8% being indifferent, and no one was against these programs. Interestingly, those with sufficiently high smoking-related LC risk to be eligible for LCS and those attending the individual course were less in favor of LCS but also less concerned about the possible harms associated with LCS. The type of counseling was a significant predictor for both LCS acceptability and perceived harm of LCS. The favorable perception of LCS in people attending SC courses, despite the considerable preoccupation with potential harms, is an important finding of this study. Introducing a discussion on the benefits and harms of LCS in SC programs may prepare persons who smoke to make informed decisions on utilizing LCS.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: What We Have Learned in Two Decades of ITALUNG and What Is Yet to Be Addressed

The ITALUNG trial started in 2004 and compared lung cancer (LC) and other-causes mortality in 55-69 years-aged smokers and ex-smokers who were randomized to four annual chest low-dose CT (LDCT) or usual care. ITALUNG showed a lower LC and cardiovascular mortality in the screened subjects after 13 years of follow-up, especially in women, and produced many ancillary studies. They included recruitment results of a population-based mimicking approach, development of software for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and lung nodules volumetry, LDCT assessment of pulmonary emphysema and coronary artery calcifications (CAC) and their relevance to long-term mortality, results of a smoking-cessation intervention, assessment of the radiations dose associated with screening LDCT, and the results of biomarkers assays. Moreover, ITALUNG data indicated that screen-detected LCs are mostly already present at baseline LDCT, can present as lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces, and can be multiple. However, several issues of LC screening are still unaddressed. They include the annual vs. biennial pace of LDCT, choice between opportunistic or population-based recruitment. and between uni or multi-centre screening, implementation of CAD-assisted reading, containment of false positive and negative LDCT results, incorporation of emphysema. and CAC quantification in models of personalized LC and mortality risk, validation of ultra-LDCT acquisitions, optimization of the smoking-cessation intervention. and prospective validation of the biomarkers.

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.

Developing a pan-European technical standard for a comprehensive high-quality lung cancer computed tomography screening programme: an ERS technical standard

BACKGROUND

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening (LCS) be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost-effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality LCS programme.

METHOD

A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies. Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee.

RESULTS

Topics were identified representing key components of a screening programme. The actions on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked ERS Task Force (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). 56 statements were produced and areas for further research identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high-quality and effective programme.

The impact of low-dose CT on smoking behavior among non-smokers, former-smokers, and smokers: A population-based screening cohort in rural China

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening may provide a "teachable moment" for the smoking cessation and relapse prevention. However, the impact of lung cancer screening on smoking initiation in non-smokers has not been reported.

METHODS

A baseline smoking behavior survey was conducted in 2000 participants who were screened by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) from 2014 to 2018. All participants were re-surveyed on their smoking behavior in 2019. Of these, 312 participants were excluded, leaving 1688 participants in the final analysis. The smoking initiation rate in baseline non-smokers, the relapse rate in baseline former smokers, and the abstinence rate in baseline current smokers were calculated, respectively. The associations between screening results, demographic characteristics, and smoking behavior change were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, smoking prevalence significantly decreased from 52.6% to 49.1%. The prevalence of smoking initiation, relapse, and abstinence in baseline non-smokers, former, and current smokers was 16.8%, 22.9%, and 23.7%, respectively. The risk of smoking initiation in baseline non-smokers was significantly higher in those with negative screening result (adjusted OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.27-6.94). Compared to smokers who only received baseline screening, the chance of smoking abstinence in baseline current smokers was reduced by over 80% in those who attended 5 rounds of screening (adjusted OR = 0.15, 95% CI:0.08-0.27). No significant associations were found between smoking relapse and prior screening frequency, with at least one positive screening result. Age, gender, occupational exposure, income, and smoking pack years were also associated with smoking behavior changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall decreased smoking prevalence indicated an overwhelming effect of "teachable moment" on "license to smoke." A tailored smoking cessation strategy should be integrated into lung cancer screening.

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.

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.

The influence of postscreening follow-up time and participant characteristics on estimates of overdiagnosis from lung cancer screening trials

We aimed to explore the underlying reasons that estimates of overdiagnosis vary across and within low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials. We conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of overdiagnosis from randomised controlled trials of LDCT screening. We then analysed the association of Ps (the excess incidence of lung cancer as a proportion of screen-detected cases) with postscreening follow-up time using a linear random effects meta-regression model. Separately, we analysed annual Ps estimates from the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial (LUSI) using exponential decay models with asymptotes. We conducted stratified analyses to investigate participant characteristics associated with Ps using the extended follow-up data from NLST. Among 12 overdiagnosis estimates from 8 trials, the postscreening follow-up ranged from 3.8 to 9.3 years, and Ps ranged from -27.0% (ITALUNG, 8.3 years follow-up) to 67.2% (DLCST, 5.0 years follow-up). Across trials, 39.1% of the variation in Ps was explained by postscreening follow-up time. The annual changes in Ps were -3.5% and -3.9% in the NLST and LUSI trials, respectively. Ps was predicted to plateau at 2.2% for NLST and 9.2% for LUSI with hypothetical infinite follow-up. In NLST, Ps increased with age from -14.9% (55-59 years) to 21.7% (70-74 years), and time trends in Ps varied by histological type. The findings suggest that differences in postscreening follow-up time partially explain variation in overdiagnosis estimates across lung cancer screening trials. Estimates of overdiagnosis should be interpreted in the context of postscreening follow-up and population characteristics.

[Low-dose Spiral Computed Tomography in Lung Cancer Screening]

Lung cancer is one of the malignant tumors with the highest morbidity and mortality in the world. The low early diagnosis rate and poor prognosis of patients have caused serious social burden. Regular screening of high-risk population by low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) can significantly improve the early diagnosis rate of lung cancer and bring new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. In recent years, LDCT lung cancer screening programs have been carried out in many countries around the world and achieved good results, but there are still some controversies in the selection of screening subjects, screening frequency, cost effectiveness and other aspects. In this paper, the key factors of LDCT lung cancer screening, screening effect, pulmonary nodule management and artificial intelligence contribution to the development of LDCT will be reviewed, and the application progress of LDCT in lung cancer screening will be discussed.
.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend

INTRODUCTION

There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible.

METHODS

Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: Clinical evidence and implementation research

Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population-based lung cancer screening is still not considered standard practice in most countries worldwide. Early lung cancer detection leads to better survival outcomes: patients diagnosed with stage 1A lung cancer have a >75% 5-year survival rate, compared to <5% at stage 4. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) thorax imaging for the secondary prevention of lung cancer has been studied at length, and has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations. The US National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% overall reduction in lung cancer mortality when comparing LDCT to chest X-ray, and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial more recently reported a 24% reduction when comparing LDCT to no screening. Hence, the focus has now shifted to implementation research. Consequently, the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN consortium based in five European countries, has set up a large-scale multicenter implementation trial. Successful implementation of and accessibility to LDCT lung cancer screening are dependent on many factors, not limited to population selection, recruitment strategy, computed tomography screening frequency, lung-nodule management, participant compliance, and cost effectiveness. This review provides an overview of current evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening, and draws attention to major factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement standardized, effective, and accessible screening throughout Europe. Evidence shows that through the appropriate use of risk-prediction models and a more personalized approach to screening, efficacy could be improved. Furthermore, extending the screening interval for low-risk individuals to reduce costs and associated harms is a possibility, and through the use of volumetric-based measurement and follow-up, false positive results can be greatly reduced. Finally, smoking cessation programs could be a valuable addition to screening programs and artificial intelligence could offer a solution to the added workload pressures radiologists are facing.

Quitting Smoking At or Around Diagnosis Improves the Overall Survival of Lung Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer (LC) remains a disease with poor prognosis despite recent advances in treatments. Here, we aimed at summarizing the current scientific evidence on whether quitting smoking at or around diagnosis has a beneficial effect on the survival of LC patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published until 31st October, 2021, that quantified the impact on LC patients' survival of quitting smoking at or around diagnosis or during treatment. Study-specific data were pooled into summary relative risk (SRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect meta-analysis models.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles published between 1980 and 2021 were included, which encompassed a total of over 10,000 LC patients. There was substantial variability across studies in terms of design, patients' characteristics, treatments received, criteria used to define smoking status (quitters or continued), and duration of follow-up. Quitting smoking at or around diagnosis was significantly associated with improved overall survival (SRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.80), consistently among patients with non-small cell LC (SRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90, n studies = 8), small cell LC (SRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.99, n studies = 4), or LC of both or unspecified histological type (SRR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96, n studies = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

Quitting smoking at or around diagnosis is associated with a beneficial effect on the survival of LC patients. Treating physicians should educate LC patients about the benefits of quitting smoking even after diagnosis and provide them with the necessary smoking cessation support.

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.

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.

Immediate smoking cessation support versus usual care in smokers attending a targeted lung health check: the QuLIT trial

Objectives

Lung cancer screening programmes offer an opportunity to address tobacco dependence in current smokers. The effectiveness of different approaches to smoking cessation in this context has not yet been established. We investigated if immediate smoking cessation support, including pharmacotherapy, offered as part of a lung cancer screening programme, increases quit rates compared to usual care (Very Brief Advice to quit and signposting to smoking cessation services).

Materials and methods

We conducted a single-blind randomised controlled trial of current smokers aged 55–75 years attending a Targeted Lung Health Check. On randomly allocated days smokers received either (1) immediate support from a trained smoking cessation counsellor with appropriate pharmacotherapy or (2) usual care. The primary outcome was self-reported quit rate at 3 months. We performed thematic analysis of participant interview responses.

Results

Of 412 people attending between January and March 2020, 115 (27.9%) were current smokers; 46% female, mean (SD) 62.4 (5.3) years. Follow-up data were available for 84 smokers. At 3 months, quit rates in the intervention group were higher 14/48 (29.2%) vs 4/36 (11%) (χ² 3.98, p=0.04). Participant interviews revealed four smoking-cessation related themes: (1) stress and anxiety, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, (3) CT scans influencing desire to quit and (4) individual beliefs about stopping smoking.

Conclusion

The provision of immediate smoking cessation support is associated with a substantial increase in quit rates at 3 months. Further research is needed to investigate longer-term outcomes and to refine future service delivery.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN12455871.

Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021.

Pivoting the Provision of Smoking Cessation Education in a Virtual Clinical World: The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience

Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis may be attributed to misbeliefs by both patients and healthcare providers on the value and benefit of quitting smoking on treatment outcomes. The perceived myths and misconceptions about the relationship between smoking and cancer may be readily dispelled with the provision of practical and pertinent education. However, busy clinics as well as the rapid move to virtual care due to the COVID-19 pandemic present several challenges with the provision of smoking cessation education. Here, we describe how the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre implemented innovative solutions to improve the delivery of education during the COVID-19 pandemic to better support patients and healthcare providers.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

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.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT in Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lung cancer continues to be one of the main causes of cancer death in Europe. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has shown high potential for screening of lung cancer in smokers, most recently in two European trials. The aim of this review was to assess lung cancer screening of smokers by LDCT with respect to clinical effectiveness, radiological procedures, quality of life, and changes in smoking behavior. We searched electronic databases in April 2020 for publications of randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on lung cancer and overall mortality, lung cancer morbidity, and harms of LDCT screening. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate effects on mortality. Forty-three publications on 10 RCTs were included. The meta-analysis of eight studies showed a statistically significant relative reduction of lung cancer mortality of 12% in the screening group (risk ratio = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97). Between 4% and 24% of screening-LDCT scans were classified as positive, and 84-96% of them turned out to be false positive. The risk of overdiagnosis was estimated between 19% and 69% of diagnosed lung cancers. Lung cancer screening can reduce disease-specific mortality in (former) smokers when stringent requirements and quality standards for performance are met.

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.

Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Part 2 - Key Elements for Programmatic Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

 For screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) to be effective, the benefits must outweigh the potential risks. In large lung cancer screening studies, a mortality reduction of approx. 20 % has been reported, which requires several organizational elements to be achieved in practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 The elements to be set up are an effective invitation strategy, uniform and quality-assured assessment criteria, and computer-assisted evaluation tools resulting in a nodule management algorithm to assign each nodule the needed workup intensity. For patients with confirmed lung cancer, immediate counseling and guideline-compliant treatment in tightly integrated regional expert centers with expert skills are required. First, pulmonology contacts as well as CT facilities should be available in the participant's neighborhood. IT infrastructure, linkage to clinical cancer registries, quality management as well as epidemiologic surveillance are also required.

RESULTS

 An effective organization of screening will result in an articulated structure of both widely distributed pulmonology offices as the participants' primary contacts and CT facilities as well as central expert facilities for supervision of screening activities, individual clarification of suspicious findings, and treatment of proven cancer.

CONCLUSION

 In order to ensure that the benefits of screening more than outweigh the potential harms and that it will be accepted by the public, a tightly organized structure is needed to ensure wide availability of pulmonologists as first contacts and CT facilities with expert skills and high-level equipment concentrated in central facilities.

KEY POINTS

  · For lung cancer screening, elements must function optimally and be tightly organized.. · Lung cancer screening requires a network of expert centers and collaborating facilities.. · IT infrastructure, QM, epidemiological surveillance, and linkage to cancer registries are essential..

CITATION FORMAT

· Delorme S, Kaaks R: Lung Cancer Screening by Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Part 2 - Key Elements for Programmatic Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 644 - 651.

Overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening: Estimates from the German Lung Cancer Screening Intervention Trial

Overdiagnosis is a major potential harm of lung cancer screening; knowing its potential magnitude helps to optimize screening eligibility criteria. The German Lung Screening Intervention Trial ("LUSI") is a randomized trial among 4052 long-term smokers (2622 men), 50.3 to 71.9 years of age from the general population around Heidelberg, Germany, comparing five annual rounds of low-dose computed tomography (n = 2029) with a control arm without intervention (n = 2023). After a median follow-up of 9.77 years postrandomization and 5.73 years since last screening, 74 participants were diagnosed with lung cancer in the control arm and 90 in the screening arm: 69 during the active screening period; of which 63 screen-detected and 6 interval cancers. The excess cumulative incidence in the screening arm (N = 16) represented 25.4% (95% confidence interval: -11.3, 64.3] of screen-detected cancer cases (N = 63). Analyzed by histologic subtype, excess incidence in the screening arm appeared largely driven by adenocarcinomas. Statistical modeling yielded an estimated mean preclinical sojourn time (MPST) of 5.38 (4.76, 5.88) years and a screen-test sensitivity of 81.6 (74.4%, 88.8%) for lung cancer overall, all histologic subtypes combined. Based on modeling, we further estimated that about 48% (47.5% [43.2%, 50.7%]) of screen-detected tumors have a lead time ≥4 years, whereas about 33% (32.8% [28.4%, 36.1%]) have a lead time ≥6 years, 23% (22.6% [18.6%, 25.7%]) ≥8 years, 16% (15.6% [12.2%, 18.3%]) ≥10 years and 11% (10.7% [8.0%, 13.0%]) ≥12 years. The high proportions of tumors with relatively long lead times suggest a major risk of overdiagnosis for individuals with comparatively short remaining life expectancies.

Prognostic selection and long-term survival analysis to assess overdiagnosis risk in lung cancer screening randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography randomized screening trials varies from 0 to 67%. The National Lung Screening Trial (extended follow-up) and ITALUNG (Italian Lung Cancer Screening Trial) have reported cumulative incidence estimates at long-term follow-up showing low or no overdiagnosis. The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial attributed the high overdiagnosis estimate to a likely selection for risk of the active arm. Here, we applied a method already used in benefit and overdiagnosis assessments to compute the long-term survival rates in the ITALUNG arms in order to confirm incidence-excess method assessment.

METHODS

Subjects in the active arm were invited for four screening rounds, while controls were in usual care. Follow-up was extended to 11.3 years. Kaplan-Meyer 5- and 10-year survivals of "resected and early" (stage I or II and resected) and "unresected or late" (stage III or IV or not resected or unclassified) lung cancer cases were compared between arms.

RESULTS

The updated ITALUNG control arm cumulative incidence rate was lower than in the active arm, but this was not statistically significant (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.67-1.18). A compensatory drop of late cases was observed after baseline screening. The proportion of "resected and early" cases was 38% and 19%, in the active and control arms, respectively. The 10-year survival rates were 64% and 60% in the active and control arms, respectively (p = 0.689). The five-year survival rates for "unresected or late" cases were 10% and 7% in the active and control arms, respectively (p = 0.679).

CONCLUSIONS

This long-term survival analysis, by prognostic categories, concluded against the long-term risk of overdiagnosis and contributed to revealing how screening works.