Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) Collaboration

Two-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Study of Integrated Smoking Cessation in a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Introduction

Smoking cessation activities incorporated into lung cancer screening programs have been broadly recommended, but studies to date have not exhibited increased quit rates associated with cessation programs in this setting. We aimed to determine the long-term effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling in smokers presenting for lung cancer screening.

Methods

This was a randomized control trial of an intensive, telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results versus usual care (information pamphlet). This analysis reports on the long-term impact (24-mo) of the intervention on abstinence from smoking.

Results

A total of 337 active smokers who participated in the screening study were randomized to active smoking cessation counseling (n = 171) or control arm (n = 174) and completed a 24-month assessment. The 30-day smoking abstinence rates at 24 months postrandomization was 18.3% and 21.4% in the control and intervention arms, respectively—a 3.1% difference (95% confidence interval: −5.4 to 11.6, p = 0.48). No statistically significant differences in the 7-day abstinence, the use of pharmacologic cessation aids, nicotine replacement therapies, nor intent to quit in the following 30 days were noted (p > 0.05). The abstinence rates at 24-months were higher overall than at 12-months (19.9% versus 13.3%, p < 0.001), and smoking intensity was lower than at baseline for ongoing smokers.

Conclusions

A telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results did not result in increased long-term cessation rates versus written information alone in unselected smokers undergoing lung cancer screening. Overall, quit rates were high and continued to improve throughout participation in the screening program. (ClinicalTrials.govNCT02431962).

ATS Core Curriculum 2021. Adult Pulmonary Medicine: Thoracic Oncology

The American Thoracic Society Core Curriculum updates clinicians annually in adult and pediatric pulmonary disease, medical critical care, and sleep medicine at the annual international conference. The 2021 Pulmonary Core Curriculum focuses on lung cancer and include risks and prevention, screening, nodules, therapeutics and associated pulmonary toxicities, and malignant pleural effusions. Although tobacco smoking remains the primary risk factor for developing lung cancer, exposure to other environmental and occupational substances, including asbestos, radon, and burned biomass, contribute to the global burden of disease. Randomized studies have demonstrated that routine screening of high-risk smokers with low-dose chest computed tomography results in detection at an earlier stage and reduction in lung cancer mortality. On the basis of these trials and other lung cancer risk tools, screening recommendations have been developed. When evaluating lung nodules, clinical and radiographic features are used to estimate the probability of cancer. Management guidelines take into account the nodule size and cancer risk estimates to provide recommendations at evaluation. Newer lung cancer therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and molecular therapies, cause pulmonary toxicity more frequently than conventional chemotherapy. Treatment-related toxicity should be suspected in patients receiving these medications who present with respiratory symptoms. Evaluation is aimed at excluding other etiologies, and treatment is based on the severity of symptoms. Malignant pleural effusions can be debilitating. The diagnosis is made by using simple pleural drainage and/or pleural biopsies. Management depends on the clinical scenario and the patient's preferences and includes the use of serial thoracentesis, a tunneled pleural catheter, or pleurodesis.

Use and perceptions of electronic nicotine delivery systems among patients attending lung cancer screening who smoke

Given accumulating evidence that electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may be a harm-reduction alternative to combustible tobacco products, it is important to understand the real-world implications of these devices in the populations that may benefit from them the most. We surveyed the use, perceptions of, and interest in using ENDS among patients attending their initial low-dose CT scan (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS) who reported current smoking, a cohort of older individuals at high-risk for lung cancer and other smoking-related illnesses due to their heavy smoking history (30 or more pack years). Participants (N = 107) completed the survey in clinic immediately before their shared decision-making visit for lung cancer screening on the day of their LDCT. Approximately a quarter of participants reported ever use of ENDS in the past; nearly a third expressed a willingness to try switching to them in the future. Prior ENDS use was significantly associated with willingness to try switching to ENDS in the future. The most common reasons to consider switching included smoking cessation and harm reduction. Only about a third were aware that ENDS are not approved by the FDA for smoking cessation; knowledge significantly varied by demographic and clinical characteristics. These findings have important implications for ENDS public health campaigns and tobacco harm reduction strategies for older individuals who smoke.

Circular RNA SLC26A4 regulates the maturation of microRNA-15a in non-small cell lung cancer cells

To the best of our knowledge, the oncogenic role of circular RNA solute carrier family 26 member 4 (circSLC26A4) has only been reported in cervical cancer, while its role in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. The present study explored the involvement of circSLC26A4 in NSCLC. NSCLC tissues and paired adjacent non-tumor tissues were collected from 64 patients with NSCLC. The expression levels of circSLC26A4, mature microRNA-15a (miR-15a) and miR-15a precursor in these tissues were determined by reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). NSCLC cells were transfected with pcDNA3.1-circSLC26A4 vector to overexpress circSLC26A4, followed by the measurement of the expression levels of mature miR-15a and miR-15a precursor using RT-qPCR. Cell proliferation was analyzed using a Cell Counting Kit-8 assay. circSLC26A4 expression was upregulated in NSCLC tissues, and its high expression was significantly associated with poor survival of patients with NSCLC. The expression levels of circSLC26A4 were correlated with the expression levels of mature miR-15a, but not the expression levels of miR-15a precursor in NSCLC tissues. In NSCLC cells, overexpression of circSLC26A4 was associated with downregulation of mature miR-15a expression, but not miR-15a precursor expression. A cell proliferation assay revealed that overexpression of circSLC26A4 reduced the inhibitory effects of overexpression of miR-15a on cell proliferation. Therefore, circSLC26A4 may suppress the maturation of miR-15a in NSCLC to inhibit cancer cell proliferation.

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.

Contemporary issues in the implementation of lung cancer screening

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography can reduce death from lung cancer by 20-24% in high-risk smokers. National lung cancer screening programmes have been implemented in the USA and Korea and are being implemented in Europe, Canada and other countries. Lung cancer screening is a process, not a test. It requires an organised programmatic approach to replicate the lung cancer mortality reduction and safety of pivotal clinical trials. Cost-effectiveness of a screening programme is strongly influenced by screening sensitivity and specificity, age to stop screening, integration of smoking cessation intervention for current smokers, screening uptake, nodule management and treatment costs. Appropriate management of screen-detected lung nodules has significant implications for healthcare resource utilisation and minimising harm from radiation exposure related to imaging studies, invasive procedures and clinically significant distress. This review focuses on selected contemporary issues in the path to implement a cost-effective lung cancer screening at the population level. The future impact of emerging technologies such as deep learning and biomarkers are also discussed.

A Web-Based Intervention to Increase Smokers' Intentions to Participate in a Cessation Study Offered at the Point of Lung Screening: Factorial Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Screen ASSIST is a cessation trial offered to current smokers at the point of lung cancer screening. Because of the unique position of promoting a prevention behavior (smoking cessation) within the context of a detection behavior (lung cancer screening), this study employed prospect theory to design and formatively evaluate a targeted recruitment video prior to trial launch.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify which message frames were most effective at promoting intent to participate in a smoking cessation study.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from a proprietary opt-in online panel company and randomized to a 2 (benefits of quitting vs risks of continuing to smoke at the time of lung screening; BvR) × 2 (gains of participating vs losses of not participating in a cessation study; GvL) message design experiment (N=314). The primary outcome was self-assessed intent to participate in a smoking cessation study. Message effectiveness and lung cancer risk perception measures were also collected. Analysis of variance examined the main effect of the 2 message factors and a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach identified predictors of intent to participate in a multivariable model. A mediation analysis was conducted to determine the direct and indirect effects of message factors on intent to participate in a cessation study.

RESULTS

A total of 296 participants completed the intervention. There were no significant differences in intent to participate in a smoking cessation study between message frames (P=.12 and P=.61). In the multivariable model, quit importance (P<.001), perceived message relevance (P<.001), and affective risk response (ie, worry about developing lung cancer; P<.001) were significant predictors of intent to participate. The benefits of quitting frame significantly increased affective risk response (Meanbenefits 2.60 vs Meanrisk 2.40; P=.03), which mediated the relationship between message frame and intent to participate (b=0.24; 95% CI 0.01-0.47; P=.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides theoretical and practical guidance on how to design and evaluate proactive recruitment messages for a cessation trial. Based on our findings, we conclude that heavy smokers are more responsive to recruitment messages that frame the benefits of quitting as it increased affective risk response, which predicted greater intention to participate in a smoking cessation study.

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.

Quantifying Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in an Underserved Population: Results From a Prospective Study

Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer death by 20-26%. However, potential harms of screening include false-positive results, procedures from false positives, procedural complications and failure to adhere to follow-up recommendations. In diverse, underserved populations, it is unknown if benefits of early lung cancer detection outweigh harms. We conducted a prospective observational study of lung cancer screening participants in an urban, safety-net institution from September 2014 to June 2020. We measured benefits of screening in terms of cancer diagnosis, stage, and treatment. We measured harms of screening by calculating false-positive rate, procedures as a result of false positive screens, procedural complications, and failure to follow-up with recommended care. Of patients with 3-year follow up, we measured these same outcomes in addition to compliance with annual screening. Of 1509 participants, 55.6% were African American, 35.2% White, 8.1% Hispanic, and 0.5% Asian. Screening resulted in cancer detection and treatment in 2.8%. False positive and procedure as a result of a false positive occurred in 9.2% and 0.8% of participants, respectively with no major complications from diagnostic procedures or treatment. Adherence to annual screening was low, 18.7%, 3.7%, and 0.4% at 1, 2, and 3 years after baseline screening respectively. Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening in a safety-net institution can successfully detect and treat lung cancer with few harms of false-positive screens, procedure after false-positive screens and major complications. However, adherence to annual screening is poor.

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.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population‐based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk‐factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk‐based. In fact, the selection of high‐risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost‐effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk‐stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk‐based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk‐based approaches can negatively influence the trade‐off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large‐scale implementation of targeted, risk‐based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high‐risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk‐based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk‐stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.

Lung cancer screening in Europe: where are we in 2021?

This manuscript reviews the recent evidence obtained in lung cancer screening with low dose spiral CT-scan (LDSCT) and focuses on the issues associated with its implementation in Europe. After a review of the magnitude of the lung cancer toll in lives, disease and Euro's, the recently released data of the major lung cancer screening trials are reviewed and mirrored with the results of the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), comparing their strengths and weaknesses and areas of future research. The specific barriers and hurdles to be addressed for widely implementing this population screening in European countries are discussed, with special emphasis on the issues of inclusion of smokers, smoking cessation interventions, radiation injury and capacity planning. The pros and cons of including current smokers will be addressed together with the issue which is the better smoking cessation intervention. A medical physicist's view on radiation exposure and quality control will address concerns about radiation induced cancers. The downstream effects of a LDSCT screening program on the capacity of CT-scans, radiologists, thoracic surgeons and radiation oncologists will follow. An estimated roadmap for the future is sketched with the expected role of all key stakeholders. This roadmap reflects the opinion leader's reflections as expressed in a number of discussions with European health authorities, taking place as part of the recently released European Beating Cancer plan.

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.

A qualitative study exploring older smokers' attitudes and motivation toward quitting during the COVID-19 pandemic

Older individuals who smoke are at increased risk of having severe outcomes from COVID-19, due to their long-term smoking and underlying health conditions. In this qualitative study, we explored the impact of COVID-19 on attitudes toward smoking and motivation to quit. Participants (N = 30) were enrolled in a larger ongoing randomized controlled smoking cessation trial conducted in the lung cancer screening setting. From March to May 2020, we assessed quantitative and qualitative responses to participants' overall concern about COVID-19, changes in amount smoked, and motivation to reduce/quit smoking. Responses to the quantitative questions indicated that 64.3% of participants were extremely concerned with COVID-19, 20.7% reported reductions in amount smoked, and 37.9% reported increased motivation to quit. The qualitative responses, which were transcribed and coded using Consensual Qualitative Research guidelines, expanded upon these findings by providing the content of participants' concerns, which included perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, the added stressors caused by COVID-19, and a variable impact on the amount smoked and motivation to quit. Although half of participants expressed extreme concern regarding COVID-19, fewer indicated increased motivation or reduced smoking. Qualitative themes suggested that the initial two months of the pandemic prompted some smokers to reduce or quit, but it exacerbated smoking triggers for others. Understanding how the pandemic continues to affect this vulnerable group will aid in adapting methods to support their efforts to stop smoking and remain abstinent.

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

OBJECTIVE

To inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Comparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years.

EXPOSURES

Screening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms).

RESULTS

Efficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Microsimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.

The Emerging Global Tobacco Treatment Workforce: Characteristics of Tobacco Treatment Specialists Trained in Council-Accredited Training Programs from 2017 to 2019

Tobacco use is projected to kill 1 billion people in the 21st century. Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) is one of the most common substance use disorders in the world. Evidence-based treatment of TUD is effective, but treatment accessibility remains very low. A dearth of specially trained clinicians is a significant barrier to treatment accessibility, even within systems of care that implement brief intervention models. The treatment of TUD is becoming more complex and tailoring treatment to address new and traditional tobacco products is needed. The Council for Tobacco Treatment Training Programs (Council) is the accrediting body for Tobacco Treatment Specialist (TTS) training programs. Between 2016 and 2019, n = 7761 trainees completed Council-accredited TTS training programs. Trainees were primarily from North America (92.6%) and the Eastern Mediterranean (6.1%) and were trained via in-person group workshops in medical and academic settings. From 2016 to 2019, the number of Council-accredited training programs increased from 14 to 22 and annual number of trainees increased by 28.5%. Trainees have diverse professional backgrounds and work in diverse settings but were primarily White (69.1%) and female (78.7%) located in North America. Nearly two-thirds intended to implement tobacco treatment services in their setting; two-thirds had been providing tobacco treatment for 1 year or less; and 20% were sent to training by their employers. These findings suggest that the training programs are contributing to the development of a new workforce of TTSs as well as the development of new programmatic tobacco treatment services in diverse settings. Developing strategies to support attendance from demographically and geographically diverse professionals might increase the proportion of trainees from marginalized groups and regions of the world with significant tobacco-related inequities.

Intergroupe francophone de cancérologie thoracique, Société de pneumologie de langue française, and Société d'imagerie thoracique statement paper on lung cancer screening

Following the American National Lung Screening Trial results in 2011 a consortium of French experts met to edit a statement. Recent results of other randomized trials gave the opportunity for our group to meet again in order to edit updated guidelines. After literature review, we provide here a new update on lung cancer screening in France. Notably, in accordance with all international guidelines, the experts renew their recommendation in favor of individual screening for lung cancer in France as per the conditions laid out in this document. In addition, the experts recommend the very rapid organization and funding of prospective studies, which, if conclusive, will enable the deployment of lung cancer screening organized at the national level.

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.

Engaging People in Tobacco Prevention and Cessation: Reflecting Back Over 20 Years Since the Master Settlement Agreement

Over the past 20 years, tobacco prevention and cessation efforts have evolved to keep pace with the changing tobacco product landscape and the widespread adoption of digital technologies. In 2019, Truth Initiative was awarded the Society of Behavioral Medicine’s Jessie Gruman Award for Health Engagement in recognition of the major role it has played on both fronts since its inception in 1999. This manuscript reviews the challenges and opportunities that have emerged over the past two decades, the evolving tactics deployed by Truth Initiative to engage people in tobacco prevention and cessation efforts, the approaches used to evaluate those efforts, and key achievements. It concludes with a summary of lessons learned and considerations for tobacco control researchers and practitioners to accelerate their impact on public health.

Adherence to annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scan in a diverse population

PURPOSE

Our aim was to develop a novel approach for lung cancer screening among a diverse population that integrates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended components including shared decision making (SDM), low-dose CT (LDCT), reporting of results in a standardized format, smoking cessation, and arrangement of follow-up care.

METHODS

Between October of 2015 and March of 2018, we enrolled patients, gathered data on demographics, delivery of SDM, reporting of LDCT results using Lung-RADS, discussion of results, and smoking cessation counseling. We measured adherence to follow-up care, cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and smoking cessation at 2 years after initial LDCT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 505 patients who were 57% African American, 30% Caucasian, 13% Hispanic, < 1% Asian, and 61% were active smokers. All participants participated in SDM, 88.1% used a decision aid, and 96.1% proceeded with LDCT. Of 496 completing LDCT, all received a discussion about results and follow-up recommendations. Overall, 12.9% had Lung-RADS 3 or 4, and 3.2% were diagnosed with lung cancer resulting in a false-positive rate of 10.7%. All 48 patients with positive screens but no cancer diagnosis adhered to follow-up care at 1 year, but only 35.4% adhered to recommended follow-up care at 2 years. The annual follow-up for patients with negative lung cancer screening results (Lung-RADS 1 and 2) was only 23.7% after one year and 2.8% after 2 years. All active smokers received smoking cessation counseling, but only 11% quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

The findings show that an integrated lung cancer screening program can be safely implemented in a diverse population, but adherence to annual screening is poor.

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.

Clinician Variation in Ordering and Completion of Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Medical System

BACKGROUND

Less than 5% of eligible individuals in the United States undergo lung cancer screening. Variation in clinicians' participation in lung cancer screening has not been determined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied medical providers who ordered ≥ 1 low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening from February 2017 through February 2019 in an integrated safety-net healthcare system. We analyzed associations between provider characteristics and LDCT orders and completion using chi-square, Fisher exact, and Student t tests, as well as ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among an estimated 194 adult primary care physicians, 144 (74%) ordered at least 1 LDCT, as did 39 specialists. These 183 medical providers ordered 1594 LDCT (median, 4; interquartile range, 2-9). In univariate and multivariate models, family practice providers (P < .001) and providers aged ≥ 50 years (P = .03) ordered more LDCT than did other clinicians. Across providers, the median proportion of ordered LDCT that were completed was 67%. The total or preceding number of LDCT ordered by a clinician was not associated with the likelihood of LDCT completion.

CONCLUSION

In an integrated safety-net healthcare system, most adult primary care providers order LDCT. The number of LDCT ordered varies widely among clinicians, and a substantial proportion of ordered LDCT are not completed.

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.

Association of Cigarette Type and Nicotine Dependence in Patients Presenting for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Over decades, there have been several alterations to cigarettes, including the addition of filters and flavoring. However, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The aim of this study was to examine the association of type of cigarette on nicotine dependence in the setting of lung cancer screening.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the National Lung Screening Trial. Tobacco dependence was evaluated by using the Fagerstrӧm Test for Nicotine Dependence, the Heaviness of Smoking Index, and time to first cigarette. Clinical outcomes, including nicotine dependence and tobacco abstinence, were assessed with descriptive statistics and χ2 tests, stratified according to cigarette tar level, flavor, and filter. Logistic regression was used to study the influence of variables on smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

More than one-third of individuals presenting for lung cancer screening are highly addicted to nicotine and smoke within 5 min of waking up. Smokers of unfiltered cigarettes were more nicotine dependent compared with filtered cigarette smokers (OR, 1.32; P < .01). Although smokers of light/ultralight cigarettes had lower dependence (OR, 0.76, P < .0001), there was no difference in smoking abstinence compared with regular cigarette smokers. There was no difference in outcomes when comparing smokers of menthol vs unflavored cigarettes.

INTERPRETATION

In a screening population, the type of cigarette smoked is associated with different levels of dependence. Eliciting type of cigarette and time to first cigarette has the potential to allow for tailored tobacco treatment interventions within this context.

Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme

INTRODUCTION

Integration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this 'teachable moment' is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study will measure the effectiveness of an SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose CT scan performed as part of YLST.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Unless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see an SC practitioner at baseline and receive SC support over 4 weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised SC support package, including CT scan images, or continued standard best practice. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019-December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated SC after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4 weeks and 12 months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow-up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN63825779, NCT03750110.

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.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt.

INTERPRETATION

Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.

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

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

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

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

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.

"I Already Know That Smoking Ain't Good for Me": Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making Discussions as a Teachable Moment

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is now recommended for people at high risk of dying of lung cancer.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The purpose of this study was to use the LCS decision discussion as a case study to understand possible underlying components of a teachable moment to enhance motivation for smoking cessation.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The study investigated how patients and clinicians communicate about smoking. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were performed of the experiences of 51 individuals who formerly or currently smoked who were offered LCS and 24 clinicians. Only the baseline interviews were used because including the follow-up interviews would have been beyond the scope of this article. The interviews focused on communication about smoking, the perceived importance of discussing smoking and screening together, and patients' perceived challenges to smoking cessation.

RESULTS

Patients and clinicians differed in their views on the role of the LCS decision discussion as a teachable moment. Although clinicians felt that this discussion was a good opportunity to positively influence smoking behaviors, neither patients nor clinicians perceived the discussion as a teachable moment affecting smoking behaviors. Other motivating factors for smoking cessation were found.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that LCS decision discussions are not currently a teachable moment for behavior change in smoking cessation, but perhaps clinicians could address other aspects of communication to enhance motivation for cessation. Our hypothesized teachable moment model helps explain that there may not be sufficient emotional response elicited during the discussion to motivate a major behavior change such as smoking cessation.

Benefits of e-cigarettes in smoking reduction and in pulmonary health among chronic smokers undergoing a lung cancer screening program at 6 months

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) might be a valid and safe device to support smoking cessation. However, the available evidence is divergent. The aim of the present work was to assess the effects of an e-cigarette program on pulmonary health (cough, breath shortness, catarrh) and to evaluate the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in reducing tobacco consumption.

METHODS

The study is a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Two hundred and ten smokers were randomized into three groups: nicotine e-cigarette (8 mg/mL nicotine concentration), nicotine-free e-cigarettes (placebo), and control with 1:1:1 ratio. All participants received a 3 months cessation program that included a cognitive-behavioral intervention aimed at supporting people in changing their behavior and improving motivation to quit.

RESULTS

Pulmonary health, assessed with self-reported measures, clinical evaluations and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, improved in participants who stopped smoking compared to their own baseline. No differences in pulmonary health were found between groups. Statistical tests showed a significant effect of Group (F (2, 118) = 4.005, p < .020) on daily cigarette consumption: after 6 months participants in the nicotine e-cigarette group smoked fewer cigarettes than any other group. Moreover, participants in this group showed the lowest level of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) (M = 12.012, S.D. = 8.130), and the lowest level of dependence (M = 3.12, S.D. = 2.29) compared to the nicotine-free e-cigarette and control conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

After 6 months about 20% of the entire sample stopped smoking. Participants who used e-cigarettes with nicotine smoked fewer tobacco cigarettes than any other group after 6 months (p < .020). Our data add to the efficacy and safety of e-cigarettes in helping smokers reducing tobacco consumption and improving pulmonary health status.

Low-Dose CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Evidence from 2 Decades of Study

Lung cancer remains the overwhelmingly greatest cause of cancer death in the United States, accounting for more annual deaths than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined. Accumulated evidence since the mid to late 1990s, however, indicates that low-dose CT screening of high-risk patients enables detection of lung cancer at an early stage and can reduce the risk of dying from lung cancer. CT screening is now a recommended clinical service in the United States, subject to guidelines and reimbursement requirements intended to standardize practice and optimize the balance of benefits and risks. In this review, the evidence on the effectiveness of CT screening will be summarized and the current guidelines and standards will be described in the context of knowledge gained from lung cancer screening studies. In addition, an overview of the potential advances that may improve CT screening will be presented, and the need to better understand the performance in clinical practice outside of the research trial setting will be discussed. © RSNA, 2020.

Screening for Lung Cancer - 10 States, 2017

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States; 148,869 lung cancer-associated deaths occurred in 2016 (1). Mortality might be reduced by identifying lung cancer at an early stage when treatment can be more effective (2). In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (CT) for adults aged 55-80 years who have a 30 pack-year* smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (2).^† This was a Grade B recommendation, which required health insurance plans to cover lung cancer screening as a preventive service.^§ To assess the prevalence of lung cancer screening by state, CDC used Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data^¶ collected in 2017 by 10 states.** Overall, 12.7% adults aged 55-80 years met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. Among those meeting USPSTF criteria, 12.5% reported they had received a CT scan to check for lung cancer in the last 12 months. Efforts to educate health care providers and provide decision support tools might increase recommended lung cancer screening.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report.

RESULTS

Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

Association of invitation to lung cancer screening and tobacco use outcomes in a VA demonstration project

A potential unintended consequence of lung cancer screening (LCS) is an adverse effect on smoking behaviors. This has been difficult to assess in previous randomized clinical trials. Our goal was to determine whether cessation and relapse behaviors differ between Veterans directly invited (DI) to participate in LCS compared to usual care (UC). We conducted a longitudinal survey of tobacco use outcomes among Veterans (Minneapolis VA) from 2014 to 2015, randomized (2:1) to DI versus UC and stratified by baseline smoking status (current/former). Within the DI group, we explored differences between those who did and did not choose to undergo LCS. A total of 979 patients (n = 660 DI, n = 319 UC) returned the survey at a median of 484 days. Among current smokers (n = 488), smoking abstinence rates and cessation attempts did not differ between DI and UC groups. More baseline smokers in DI were non-daily smokers at follow-up compared to those in UC (25.3% vs 15.6%, OR 1.97 95%CI 1.15–3.36). A significant proportion of former smokers at baseline relapsed, with 17% overall indicating past 30-day smoking. This did not differ between arms. Of those invited to LCS, smoking outcomes did not significantly differ between those who chose to be screened (161/660) versus not. This randomized program evaluation of smoking behaviors in the context of invitation to LCS observed no adverse or beneficial effects on tobacco cessation or relapse among participants invited to LCS, or among those who completed screening. As LCS programs scale and spread nationally, effective cessation programs will be essential.

Effects of Cigarette Smoking on Retinal and Choroidal Thickness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Cigarette smoking has been regarded as a risk factor for the incidence of a wide variety of chronic illness; however, its effect on thickness of the retina or choroid is still unknown.

Methods

A consummate literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase up to January, 2018. The quantitative synthesis was conducted by Stata 12.0.

Results

A total of 13 observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. In this meta-analysis of all available observational studies, no significant effect of tobacco smoking on retinal or choroidal thickness change was detected. However, advanced analyses showed that smoking would influence the thickness of RNFL (average: SMD, −0.332; 95% CI, −0.637 to −0.027; inferior: SMD, −0.632; 95% CI, −1.092 to −0.172; and superior: SMD, −0.720; 95% CI, −0.977 to −0.463) and GCL (superior: SMD, −0.549; 95% CI, −0.884 to −0.215; inferior: SMD, −0.602; 95% CI, −0.938 to −0.265). Meanwhile, subgroup analyses demonstrated that the results based on studies in some regions (America and Africa) and cross-sectional studies showed a reduced choroidal thickness in smokers. No publication bias was detected in this study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, no significant effect of tobacco smoking on retinal or choroidal thickness change was detected. However, smoking would influence the thickness of RNFL and GCL. Future research on this field would help in the prevention and treatment of smoking-associated disorders.

A Randomized Controlled Study of Integrated Smoking Cessation in a Lung Cancer Screening Program

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation activities incorporated into lung cancer screening programs have been broadly recommended, but studies to date have not shown increased quit rates associated with cessation programs in this setting. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling in smokers presenting for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

This study is a randomized control trial of an intensive telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results versus usual care (information pamphlet). All active smokers enrolled in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study cohort were randomized on a 1:1 ratio with a primary endpoint of self-reported 30-day abstinence at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 345 active smokers participating in the screening study were randomized to active smoking cessation counseling (n = 171) or control arm (n = 174). Thirty-day smoking abstinence at 12 months post-randomization was noted in 22 of 174 (12.6%) and 24 of 171 (14.0%) of participants in the control and intervention arms, respectively, a 1.4% difference (95% confidence interval: -5.9 to 8.7, p = 0.7). No statistically significant differences in 7-day or point abstinence were noted, nor were differences at 6 months or 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A telephone-based smoking cessation counseling intervention incorporating lung cancer screening results did not result in increased 12-month cessation rates versus written information alone in unselected smokers undergoing lung cancer screening. Routine referral of all current smokers to counseling-based cessation programs may not improve long-term cessation in this patient cohort. Future studies should specifically focus on this subgroup of older long-term smokers to determine the optimal method of integrating smoking cessation with lung cancer screening (clinicaltrials.govNCT02431962).

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in the Community Setting in the United States

PURPOSE

The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography screening, leading to implementation of lung cancer screening across the United States. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage, but questions remained about effectiveness of community-based screening. To assess screening implementation during the first full year of CMS coverage, we surveyed a nationwide network of lung cancer screening centers, comparing results from academic and nonacademic centers.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-five lung cancer screening centers that have been designated Screening Centers of Excellence responded to a survey about their 2016 program data and practices. The survey included 21 pretested, closed- and open-ended quantitative and qualitative questions covering implementation, workflow, numbers of screening tests completed, and cancers diagnosed.

RESULTS

Centers were predominantly community based (62%), with broad geographic distribution. In both community and academic centers, more than half of lung cancers were diagnosed at stage I or limited stage, demonstrating a clear stage shift compared with historical data. Lung-RADS results were also comparable. There are wide variations in the ways centers address Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requirements. The most significant barriers to screening implementation were insurance and billing issues, lack of provider referral, lack of patient awareness, and internal workflow challenges.

CONCLUSION

These data validate that responsible screening can take place in a community setting and that lung cancers detected by low-dose computed tomography screening are often diagnosed at an early, more treatable stage. Lung cancer screening programs have developed different ways to address requirements, but many implementation challenges remain.

Study protocol for a telephone-based smoking cessation randomized controlled trial in the lung cancer screening setting: The lung screening, tobacco, and health trial

Lung cancer mortality can be reduced by 20% via low dose CT lung cancer screening (LCS) and treatment of early-stage disease. Providing tobacco use treatment to high risk cigarette smokers in the LCS setting may result in health benefits beyond the impact of LCS. As one of the nine trials in the National Cancer Institute's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) collaboration, the goal of the Lung Screening, Tobacco, and Health (LSTH) trial is to develop a scalable and cost-effective cessation intervention for subsequent implementation by LCS programs. Guided by the RE-AIM Framework, the LSTH trial is a two-arm RCT (N = 1330) enrolling English- and Spanish-speaking smokers registered for LCS at one of seven collaborating sites. Participants are randomly assigned to Usual Care (UC; three proactive telephone counseling sessions/two weeks of nicotine patches) vs. Intensive Telephone Counseling (ITC; eight proactive sessions/eight weeks of nicotine patches, plus discussion of the LCS results to increase motivation to quit). Telephone counseling is provided by tobacco treatment specialists. To increase continuity of care, referring physicians are notified of participant enrollment and smoking status following the intervention. Outcomes include: 1) self-reported 7-day, 30-day, and sustained abstinence, and biochemically-verified at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-randomization, 2) reach and engagement of the interventions, and 3) cost-effectiveness of the interventions. The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) will model long-term impacts of six SCALE trials on the cost per life year saved, quality-adjusted life years saved, lung cancer mortality reduction, and population mortality. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinical trials.gov: NCT03200236.

Update on screening for lung cancer

As the leading cause of cancer related death world wide, lung cancer is responsible for an enormous amount of suffering and disability. Detection of disease when it is surgically curable is associated with far greater odds of cure, and therefore it is a disease for which mass screening of high-risk populations has significant potential benefit. Starting in 2011, with the publication of the National Lung Screening Trial from United States (U.S.), mass screening programs have emerged throughout the U.S., as well as in other countries. More recently, large European screening trials have confirmed the potential mortality benefit of lung cancer screening. This invited non-systematic review paper covers the trial that data justify mass-screening, for lung cancer and proposes strategies for maximizing benefits and minimizing harms in the context of a mass public health lung cancer screening program.

Implementation planning for lung cancer screening in China

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in China, with over 690 000 lung cancer deaths estimated in 2018. The mortality has increased about five-fold from the mid-1970s to the 2000s. Lung cancer low-dose computerized tomography (LDCT) screening in smokers was shown to improve survival in the US National Lung Screening Trial, and more recently in the European NELSON trial. However, although the predominant risk factor, smoking contributes to a lower fraction of lung cancers in China than in the UK and USA. Therefore, it is necessary to establish Chinese-specific screening strategies. There have been 23 associated programmes completed or still ongoing in China since the 1980s, mainly after 2000; and one has recently been planned. Generally, their entry criteria are not smoking-stringent. Most of the Chinese programmes have reported preliminary results only, which demonstrated a different high-risk subpopulation of lung cancer in China. Evidence concerning LDCT screening implementation is based on results of randomized controlled trials outside China. LDCT screening programmes combining tobacco control would produce more benefits. Population recruitment (e.g. risk-based selection), screening protocol, nodule management and cost-effectiveness are discussed in detail. In China, the high-risk subpopulation eligible for lung cancer screening has not as yet been confirmed, as all the risk parameters have not as yet been determined. Although evidence on best practice for implementation of lung cancer screening has been accumulating in other countries, further research in China is urgently required, as China is now facing a lung cancer epidemic.