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

Rural communities experience higher radon exposure versus urban areas, potentially due to drilled groundwater well annuli acting as unintended radon gas migration conduits

Repetitive, long-term inhalation of radioactive radon gas is one of the leading causes of lung cancer, with exposure differences being a function of geographic location, built environment, personal demographics, activity patterns, and decision-making. Here, we examine radon exposure disparities across the urban-to-rural landscape, based on 42,051 Canadian residential properties in 2034 distinct communities. People living in rural, lower population density communities experience as much as 31.2% greater average residential radon levels relative to urban equivalents, equating to an additional 26.7 Bq/m3 excess in geometric mean indoor air radon, and an additional 1 mSv/year in excess alpha radiation exposure dose rate to the lungs for occupants. Pairwise and multivariate analyses indicate that community-based radon exposure disparities are, in part, explained by increased prevalence of larger floorplan bungalows in rural areas, but that a majority of the effect is attributed to proximity to, but not water use from, drilled groundwater wells. We propose that unintended radon gas migration in the annulus of drilled groundwater wells provides radon migration pathways from the deeper subsurface into near-surface materials. Our findings highlight a previously under-appreciated determinant of radon-induced lung cancer risk, and support a need for targeted radon testing and reduction in rural communities.

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.

A randomised controlled trial testing acceptance of practitioner-referral versus self-referral to stop smoking services within the Lung Screen Uptake Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Optimising smoking cessation (SC) referral strategies within lung cancer screening (LCS) could significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. This study aimed to measure acceptance of referral to SC support by either practitioner-referral or self-referral among participants attending a hospital-based lung health check appointment for LCS as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

DESIGN

Single-blinded two-arm randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

Six hundred forty-two individuals ages 60 to 75 years, who self-reported currently smoking or had a carbon monoxide reading over 10 ppm during the lung health check appointment.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either a contact information card for self-referral to a local stop smoking service (SSS) (self-referral, n = 360) or a SSS referral made on their behalf by the nurse or trial practitioner (practitioner-referral, n = 329).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was acceptance of the practitioner-referral (defined as participants giving permission for their details to be shared with the local SSS) compared with acceptance of the self-referral (defined as participants taking the physical SSS contact information card to refer themselves to the local SSS).

FINDINGS

Half (49.8%) accepted the practitioner-made referral to a local SSS, whereas most (88.5%) accepted the self-referral. The odds of accepting the practitioner-referral were statistically significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval = 0.06-0.17) than the self- referral. In analyses stratified by group, greater quit confidence, quit attempts and Black ethnicity were associated with increased acceptance within the practitioner-referral group. There were no statistically significant interactions between acceptance by referral group and any of the participants' demographic or smoking characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants in hospital-based lung cancer screening in England who self-reported smoking or met a carbon monoxide cut-off, both practitioner-referral and self-referral smoking cessation strategies were highly accepted. Although self-referral was more frequently accepted, prior evidence suggests practitioner-referrals increase quit attempts, suggesting practitioner-referrals should be the first-line strategy within lung cancer screening, with self-referral offered as an alternative.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Into Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: Results of the Ontario, Canada Pilot

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose computed tomography screening in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality. To inform the implementation of a provincial lung cancer screening program, Ontario Health undertook a Pilot study, which integrated smoking cessation (SC).

METHODS

The impact of integrating SC into the Pilot was assessed by the following: rate of acceptance of a SC referral; proportion of individuals who were currently smoking cigarettes and attended a SC session; the quit rate at 1 year; change in the number of quit attempts; change in Heaviness of Smoking Index; and relapse rate in those who previously smoked.

RESULTS

A total of 7768 individuals were recruited predominantly through primary care physician referral. Of these, 4463 were currently smoking and were risk assessed and referred to SC services, irrespective of screening eligibility: 3114 (69.8%) accepted referral to an in-hospital SC program, 431 (9.7%) to telephone quit lines, and 50 (1.1%) to other programs. In addition, 4.4% reported no intention to quit and 8.5% were not interested in participating in a SC program. Of the 3063 screen-eligible individuals who were smoking at baseline low-dose computed tomography scan, 2736 (89.3%) attended in-hospital SC counseling. The quit rate at 1 year was 15.5% (95% confidence interval: 13.4%-17.7%; range: 10.5%-20.0%). Improvements were also observed in Heaviness of Smoking Index (p < 0.0001), number of cigarettes smoked per day (p < 0.0001), time to first cigarette (p < 0.0001), and number of quit attempts (p < 0.001). Of those who reported having quit within the previous 6 months, 6.3% had resumed smoking at 1 year. Furthermore, 92.7% of the respondents reported satisfaction with the hospital-based SC program.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of these observations, the Ontario Lung Screening Program continues to recruit through primary care providers, to assess risk for eligibility using trained navigators, and to use an opt-out approach to referral for cessation services. In addition, initial in-hospital SC support and intensive follow-on cessation interventions will be provided to the extent possible.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02597491.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019147151. Registered 23 June 2022.

Pulmonary prehabilitation and smoking cessation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize the current literature on pulmonary prehabilitation programs, their effects on postoperative pulmonary complications, and the financial implications of implementing these programs. Additionally, this review has discussed the current trends in pulmonary prehabilitation programs, techniques for improving rates of perioperative smoking cessation, and the optimal timing of these interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prehabilitation is a series of personalized multimodal interventions tailored to individual needs, including lifestyle and behavioral measures. Pulmonary prehabilitation has shown to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs).

SUMMARY

The implications of clinical practice and research findings regarding PPCs are an increased burden of postoperative complications and financial cost to both patients and hospital systems. There is convincing evidence that pulmonary prehabilitation based on endurance training should be started 8-12 weeks prior to major surgery; however, similar rates of improved postoperative outcomes are observed with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for 1-2 weeks. This shorter interval of prehabilitation may be more appropriate for patients awaiting thoracic surgery, especially for cancer resection. Additionally, costs associated with creating and maintaining a prehabilitation program are mitigated by shortened lengths of stay and reduced PPCs. Please see Video Abstract, http://links.lww.com/COAN/A90.

Immediate, Remote Smoking Cessation Intervention in Participants Undergoing a Targeted Lung Health Check: Quit Smoking Lung Health Intervention Trial, a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening programs provide an opportunity to support people who smoke to quit, but the most appropriate model for delivery remains to be determined. Immediate face-to-face smoking cessation support for people undergoing screening can increase quit rates, but it is not known whether remote delivery of immediate smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy in this context also is effective.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does an immediate telephone smoking cessation intervention increase quit rates compared with usual care among a population enrolled in a targeted lung health check (TLHC)?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a single-masked randomized controlled trial, people 55 to 75 years of age who smoke and attended a TLHC were allocated by day of attendance to receive either immediate telephone smoking cessation intervention (TSI) support (starting immediately and lasting for 6 weeks) with appropriate pharmacotherapy or usual care (UC; very brief advice to quit and signposting to smoking cessation services). The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 3 months. Differences between groups were assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifteen people taking part in the screening program who reported current smoking with a mean ± SD age of 63 ± 5.4 years, 48% of whom were women, were randomized to TSI (n = 152) or UC (n = 163). The two groups were well matched at baseline. Self-reported quit rates were higher in the intervention arm, 21.1% vs 8.9% (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.44-5.61; P = .002). Controlling for participant demographics, neither baseline smoking characteristics nor the discovery of abnormalities on low-dose CT imaging modified the effect of the intervention.

INTERPRETATION

Immediate provision of an intensive telephone-based smoking cessation intervention including pharmacotherapy, delivered within a targeted lung screening context, is associated with increased smoking abstinence at 3 months.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISRCTN registry; No.: ISRCTN12455871; URL: www.IRSCN.com.

Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer deaths by early detection. The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with LDCT in adults of age 50 years to 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and are currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years. The implementation of a lung-cancer-screening program is complex. High-quality screening requires the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. The aim of a screening program is to find balance between mortality reduction and avoiding potential harms related to false-positive findings, overdiagnosis, invasive procedures, and radiation exposure. Components and processes of a high-quality lung-cancer-screening program include the identification of eligible individuals, shared decision-making, performing and reporting LDCT results, management of screen-detected lung nodules and non-nodule findings, smoking cessation, ensuring adherence, data collection, and quality improvement.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening settings. We conducted an economic analysis embedded in a national randomized trial of 2 telephone counseling cessation interventions.

METHODS

We used a societal perspective to compare the short-term cost per 6-month bio-verified quit and long-term cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Trial data were used to micro-cost intervention delivery, and the data were extended to a lifetime horizon using an established Cancer Intervention Surveillance and Modeling Network lung cancer model. We modeled the impact of screening accompanied by 8 weeks vs 3 weeks of telephone counseling (plus nicotine replacement) vs screening alone based on 2021 screening eligibility. Lifetime downstream costs (2021 dollars) and effects (life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) saved were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested the effects of varying quit rates and costs; all analyses assumed nonrelapse after quitting.

RESULTS

The costs for delivery of the 8-week vs 3-week protocol were $380.23 vs $144.93 per person, and quit rates were 7.14% vs 5.96%, respectively. The least costly strategy was a 3-week counseling approach. An 8-week (vs 3-week) counseling approach increased costs but gained QALYs for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4029 per QALY. Screening alone cost more and saved fewer QALYs than either counseling strategy. Conclusions were robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone-based cessation interventions with nicotine replacement are considered cost-effective in the lung screening setting. Integrating smoking cessation interventions with lung screening programs has the potential to maximize long-term health benefits at reasonable costs.

Increasing uptake to a lung cancer screening programme: building with communities through co-design

Background

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake.

Methods

A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data.

Results

In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public.

Conclusion

Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.

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.

Improving Lung Cancer Screening Rates Through an Evidence-Based Electronic Health Record Smoking History

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is prevalent worldwide, with 2.1 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths in 2020. In the United States, an estimated 131 880 lung cancer deaths are expected to occur in 2021, with most detected in later stages. Smokers are 15 to 30 times more likely to develop or die from lung cancer.

LOCAL PROBLEM

Our community residents were more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer in later stages (62%) compared with 56% nationally, resulting in an increased community mortality rate.

INTERVENTION

Evidence-based changes in an electronic health record system supported identification and referral of high-risk patients for low-dose computer tomography to improve early lung cancer detection rates.

RESULTS

Early-stage lung cancer detection increased 24%.

CONCLUSIONS

Interprofessional teams used technology to adopt evidence-based practice and improve health outcomes in their communities.

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

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

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.

Lung cancer screening primer: Key information for primary care providers

OBJECTIVE

To review new evidence reported since the 2016 publication of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommendations and to summarize key facets of lung cancer screening to better equip primary care providers (PCPs) in anticipation of wider implementation of the recommendations.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

A new, large randomized controlled trial has been published since 2016, as have updates from 4 other trials. PubMed was searched for studies published between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2020, using search words including lung cancer screening eligibility, lung cancer screening criteria, and lung cancer screening guidelines. All information from peer-reviewed articles, reference lists, books, and websites was considered.

MAIN MESSAGE

Lung cancers diagnosed at stage 4 have a 5-year survival rate of only 5% and have a disproportionate impact on those with lower socioeconomic status, rural populations, and Indigenous populations. By downstaging, or diagnosing lung cancers at an earlier and more treatable stage, lung cancer screening reduces mortality with a number needed to screen of 250 to prevent 1 death. Practical aspects of lung cancer screening are reviewed, including criteria to screen, appropriate low-dose computed tomography screening, and management of findings. Harms of screening, such as overdiagnosis and incidental findings, are discussed to allow PCPs to appropriately counsel their patients in the face of ongoing implementation of new lung cancer screening programs.

CONCLUSION

Lung cancer screening, with its embedded emphasis on smoking cessation, is an excellent addition to PCPs' preventive health care tools. The implementation of formal and pilot lung cancer screening programs across Canada means that PCPs will be increasingly required to counsel their patients around the uptake of lung cancer screening.

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).

Screening for Lung Cancer in Individuals Who Never Smoked: An International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee Report

Screening with low-dose computed tomography of high-risk individuals with a smoking history reduces lung cancer mortality. Current screening guidelines and eligibility criteria can miss more than 50% of lung cancers, and in some geographic areas, such as East Asia, a large proportion of the missed lung cancers are in never-smokers. Although randomized trials revealed the benefits of screening for people who smoke, these trials generally excluded never-smokers. Thus, the feasibility and effectiveness of lung cancer screening of individuals who never smoked are uncertain. Several known and suspected risk factors for lung cancers in never-smokers such as exposure to secondhand smoke, occupational carcinogens, radon, air pollution, and pulmonary diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung diseases, and intrinsic factors, such as age, are well noted. In this regard, knowledge of risk factors may make possible quantification and prediction of lung cancer risk in never smokers. It is worth considering if and how never smokers could be included in population-based screening programs. As the implementation of these programs is challenging in many countries owing to multiple factors and the epidemiologic differences by global regions, these issues will need to be evaluated in each country taking into account various factors, including accuracy of risk assessment and cost-effectiveness of screening in never smokers. This report aims to outline current knowledge on risk factors for lung cancer in never smokers to propose research strategies for this topic and initiate a broader discussion on lung cancer screening of never smokers. Similar considerations can be made in current and ex-smokers, which do not fulfill the current screening inclusion criteria, but otherwise are at increased risk. Although screening of never smokers may in the future be effectively conducted, current evidence to support widespread implementation of this practice is lacking.

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.

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.

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.

Risk Perception Among a Lung Cancer Screening Population

BACKGROUND

A successful lung cancer screening program requires a patient cohort at sufficient risk of developing cancer who are willing to participate. Among other factors, a patient's lung cancer risk perception may inform their attitudes toward screening and smoking cessation programs.

RESEARCH QUESTION

This study analyzed data from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) Study to address the following questions: Which factors are associated with the perception of lung cancer risk? Is there an association between risk perception for lung cancer and actual calculated risk? Is there an association between risk perception for lung cancer and the intent to quit smoking? Are there potential targets for lung cancer screening awareness?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The PanCan study recruited current or former smokers aged 50 to 75 years who had at least a 2% risk of developing lung cancer over 6 years to undergo low-dose screening CT. Risk perception and worry about lung cancer were captured on a baseline questionnaire. Cumulative logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between baseline risk variables and both lung cancer risk perception and worry.

RESULTS

Among the 2,514 individuals analyzed, a higher perceived risk of lung cancer was positively associated with calculated risk (P = .032). Younger age, being a former smoker, respiratory symptoms, lower FEV₁, COPD, and a family history of lung cancer were associated with higher perceived risk. Conversely, a consistent relationship between calculated risk and worry was not identified. There was a positive association between risk perception and lung cancer worry and reported intent to quit smoking.

INTERPRETATION

Individuals' lung cancer risk perception correlated positively with calculated risk in a screening population. Promotion of screening programs may benefit from focusing on factors associated with higher risk perception; conversely, harnessing worry seemingly holds less value.

Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation efforts

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Smoking cessation and lung cancer screening]

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Incorporating lung cancer screening education into tobacco cessation group counseling

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Design and Pilot Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based System to Automatically Refer Cancer Patients to Tobacco Use Treatment

Continued tobacco use after cancer diagnosis is detrimental to treatment and survivorship. The current reach of evidence-based tobacco treatments in cancer patients is low. As a part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center designed an electronic health record (EHR, Epic^©)-based process to automatically refer ambulatory oncology patients to tobacco use treatment, regardless of intent to cease tobacco use(“opt out”). The referral and patient scheduling, accomplished through a best practice advisory (BPA) directed to staff who room patients, does not require a co-signature from clinicians. This process was piloted for a six-week period starting in July of 2019 at the Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. All oncology patients who were tobacco users were referred for tobacco treatment by the rooming staff (n = 210). Of these, 150 (71%) had a tobacco treatment appointment scheduled, and 25 (17%) completed their appointment. We conclude that an EHR-based “opt-out” approach to refer patients to tobacco dependence treatment that does not require active involvement by clinicians is feasible within the oncology clinical practice. Further work is needed to increase the proportion of scheduled patients who attend their appointments.

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.

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.

Crosstalk between let-7a-5p and BCL-xL in the Initiation of Toxic Autophagy in Lung Cancer

Autophagy is essential for cellular metabolism and plays pivotal roles in carcinogenesis, while excessive autophagy induces toxicity and cell death. Our previous studies have suggested that let-7a-5p/BCL-xL might regulate autophagy in lung cancer, but the regulatory mechanism is unclear. The central goal of the study was to figure out the role of let-7a-5p/BCL-xL in the initiation of autophagy and its effect on the migration, invasion, and proliferation of A549 cells as well as its therapeutic potential in lung cancer. Based on the genome-wide expression profiles of lung cancer, BCL-xL and let-7a-5p were found to be dysregulated and negatively correlated in lung adenocarcinoma, which was associated with the survival of lung cancer. The crosstalk between BCL-xL and let-7a-5p was then investigated using dual-luciferase reporter assay, and it was found to suppress the migration and invasion of A549 cells. Further, we found that the crosstalk between BCL-xL and let-7a-5p could lead to toxic autophagy and cell death through activating the PI3K-signaling pathway, which was independent of apoptosis or pyroptosis. These findings indicate that let-7a-5p is a sensitive initiator for toxic autophagy in A549 lung cancer cells and is an appealing target for lung cancer therapy.