Tobacco cessation in lung cancer screening-do we have the evidence?

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Study protocol of a multiphase optimization strategy trial (MOST) for delivery of smoking cessation treatment in lung cancer screening settings

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement that the integration of cessation services in lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential for achieving the full benefits of LCS with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). There is a formidable knowledge gap about how to best design feasible, effective, and scalable cessation services in LCS facilities. A collective of NCI-funded clinical trials addressing this gap is the Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration.

METHODS

The Cessation and Screening to Save Lives (CASTL) trial seeks to advance knowledge about the reach, effectiveness, and implementation of tobacco treatment in lung cancer screening. We describe the rationale, design, evaluation plan, and interventions tested in this multiphase optimization strategy trial (MOST). A total of 1152 screening-eligible current smokers are being recruited from 18 LCS sites (n = 64/site) in both academic and community settings across the USA. Participants receive enhanced standard care (cessation advice and referral to the national Quitline) and are randomized to receive additional tobacco treatment components (motivational counseling, nicotine replacement patches/lozenges, message framing). The primary outcome is biochemically validated, abstinence at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes are self-reported smoking abstinence, quit attempts, and smoking reduction at 3 and 6 months. Guided by the Implementation Outcomes Framework (IOF), our evaluation includes measurement of implementation processes (reach, fidelity, acceptability, appropriateness, sustainability, and cost).

CONCLUSION

We will identify effective treatment components for delivery by LCS sites. The findings will guide the assembly of an optimized smoking cessation package that achieves superior cessation outcomes. Future trials can examine the strategies for wider implementation of tobacco treatment in LDCT-LCS sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03315910.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.