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

Effect of a Personalized Tobacco Treatment Intervention on Smoking Abstinence in Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

To determine whether personalized gain-framed messaging and biomarker feedback related to tobacco cessation or reduction decrease smoking behavior in patients undergoing or eligible for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2020, 188 patients were enrolled in a two-phase, sequential, randomized controlled trial. Phase 1 evaluated whether standard of care (SC) (five in-person counseling sessions and 8 weeks of nicotine patch) plus gain-framed messaging (GFM) versus SC would increase 8-week biochemically verified smoking cessation rates. In 143 participants randomized in phase 2, we tested whether feedback on smoking-related biomarkers would reduce 6-month self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day compared with a no feedback control. Chi-square test and mixed effects repeated measures analyses were used to evaluate group differences.

RESULTS

Participants were 62.5 ± 5.6 (mean ± SD) years of age, had a 50.3 ± 21 pack-year smoking history, and were smoking 16.9 ± 9.9 cigarettes per day. At 8 weeks, there was no difference in quit rates between those randomized to SC plus GFM (n = 15 of 93, 16.1%) and those randomized to SC (n = 16 of 95, 16.8%), with p equals to 0.90. At the 6-month post-randomization follow-up, number of cigarettes smoked per day was similar in the feedback (least-squares mean = 7.5, 95% confidence interval: 6.0-9.1) and no feedback arms (7.7, 95% confidence interval: 6.2-9.3), with p equals to 0.87.

CONCLUSIONS

Gain-framed messaging and health feedback did not significantly improve quit rates relative to comprehensive standard of care. Nevertheless, the overall program achieved clinically meaningful smoking quit rates in this older high pack-year cohort, highlighting the importance of intensive tobacco treatment for patients undergoing lung cancer screening. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTERED WITH CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02658032.

Estimated US Cancer Deaths Prevented With Increased Use of Lung, Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancer Screening

Importance

Increased use of recommended screening could help achieve the Cancer Moonshot goal of reducing US cancer deaths.

Objective

To estimate the number of cancer deaths that could be prevented with a 10-percentage point increase in the use of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended screening.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This decision analytical model study is an extension of previous studies conducted for the USPSTF from 2018 to 2023. This study simulated contemporary cohorts of US adults eligible for lung, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening.

Exposures

Annual low-dose computed lung tomography among eligible adults aged 50 to 80 years; colonoscopy every 10 years among adults aged 45 to 75 years; biennial mammography among female adults aged 40 to 74 years; and triennial cervical cytology screening among female adults aged 21 to 29 years, followed by human papillomavirus testing every 5 years from ages 30 to 65 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Estimated number of cancer deaths prevented with a 10-percentage point increase in screening use, assuming screening commences at the USPSTF-recommended starting age and continues throughout the lifetime. Outcomes were presented 2 ways: (1) per 100 000 and (2) among US adults in 2021; and they were expressed among the target population at the age of screening initiation. For lung cancer, estimates were among those who will also meet the smoking eligibility criteria during their lifetime. Harms from increased uptake were also reported.

Results

A 10-percentage point increase in screening use at the age that USPSTF recommended screening commences was estimated to prevent 226 lung cancer deaths (range across models within the cancer site, 133-332 deaths), 283 (range, 263-313) colorectal cancer deaths, 82 (range, 61-106) breast cancer deaths, and 81 (1 model; no range available) cervical cancer deaths over the lifetimes of 100 000 persons eligible for screening. These rates corresponded with an estimated 1010 (range, 590-1480) lung cancer deaths prevented, 11 070 (range, 10 280-12 250) colorectal cancer deaths prevented, 1790 (range, 1330-2310) breast cancer deaths prevented, and 1710 (no range available) cervical cancer deaths prevented over the lifetimes of eligible US residents at the recommended age to initiate screening in 2021. Increased uptake was also estimated to generate harms, including 100 000 (range, 45 000-159 000) false-positive lung scans, 6000 (range, 6000-7000) colonoscopy complications, 300 000 (range, 295 000-302 000) false-positive mammograms, and 348 000 (no range available) colposcopies over the lifetime.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this decision analytical model study, a 10-percentage point increase in uptake of USPSTF-recommended lung, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening at the recommended starting age was estimated to yield important reductions in cancer deaths. Achieving these reductions is predicated on ensuring equitable access to screening.

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

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

The tobacco quitline setting as a teachable moment: The Educating Quitline Users About Lung (EQUAL) cancer screening randomized trial

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose CT is recommended for high-risk individuals, screening adherence remains low. We conducted a randomized trial to compare two methods of providing LCS education to Maryland Tobacco Quitline (MTQ) callers in order to assess whether this setting may serve as a teachable moment for LCS-eligible individuals. MTQ callers (50-80 years, 20+ pack-years, prior LCS ≥12 months) completed the baseline and were randomized to the Print- or Web-based version of ShouldIScreen.com. Participants completed 1- and 4-month follow-up assessments to evaluate intervention engagement and LCS-related outcomes. Participants (Print = 152, Web = 146) were 61.7 (SD = 6.3) years old and reported 63.5 pack-years (SD = 36.0). Most identified as Black (54.2%), female (66.1%), having internet access (78.9%), completing other recommended cancer screenings (86.3%), and that they would undergo LCS if recommended by their provider (91.3%). By 4 months, significantly more Print (75.0%) than Web (61.6%) participants had read the materials (P = .01). Most reported the interventions contained "the right amount" of information (92.6%) and prepared them to talk with their doctor (57.2%). Regarding screening-related outcomes, 42.8% (Print) and 43.8% (Web) had scheduled or completed a low-dose CT scan or a shared decision-making visit (P = .86). In a racially diverse sample of LCS-eligible quitline callers, offering LCS educational materials resulted in high intervention engagement and screening-related appointments. As >20% did not have internet access, providing participants' preferred modality (web/print) may improve intervention engagement and knowledge. Improving LCS awareness represents an important opportunity to increase screening among eligible but unscreened quitline callers.

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.

The Optimizing Lung Screening Trial (WF-20817CD): Multicenter Randomized Effectiveness Implementation Trial to Increase Tobacco Use Cessation for Individuals Undergoing Lung Screening

BACKGROUND

One-half of all people who undergo lung cancer screening (LCS) currently use tobacco. However, few published studies have explored how to implement effective tobacco use treatment optimally during the LCS encounter.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Was the Optimizing Lung Screening intervention (OaSiS) effective at reducing tobacco use among patients undergoing LCS in community-based radiology facilities?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The OaSiS study (National Cancer Institute [NCI] Protocol No.: WF-20817CD) is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomized trial of radiology facilities conducted in partnership with the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base. We randomly assigned 26 radiology facilities in 20 states to the intervention or usual care group. Staff at intervention facilities implemented a variety of strategies targeting the clinic and care team. Eligible patient participants were aged 55 to 77 years undergoing LCS and currently using tobacco. Of 1,094 who completed a baseline survey (523 intervention group, 471 control group) immediately before the LCS appointment, 956 completed the 6-month follow-up (86% retention rate). Fifty-four percent of those who reported not using tobacco at 6 months completed biochemical verification via mailed cotinine assay. Generalized estimating equation marginal models were used in an intention-to-treat analysis to predict 7-day tobacco use abstinence.

RESULTS

The average self-reported abstinence among participants varied considerably across facilities (0%-27%). Despite a significant increase in average cessation rate over time (0% at baseline to approximately 13% at 6 months; P < .0001), tobacco use did not differ by trial group at 14 days (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.46-1.99; P = .90), 3 months (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.69-1.99; P = .56), or 6 months (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.65-1.43; P = .87).

INTERPRETATION

The OaSiS trial participants showed a significant reduction in tobacco use over time, but no difference by trial arm was found.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03291587; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Smoking Disparities by Level of Educational Attainment and Birth Cohort in the U.S

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how U.S. smoking patterns of initiation, cessation, and intensity vary by birth cohort across education levels or how these patterns may be driven by other demographic characteristics.

METHODS

Smoking data for adults aged ≥25 years was obtained from the National Health Interview Surveys 1966-2018. Age-period-cohort models were developed to estimate the probabilities of smoking initiation, cessation, intensity, and prevalence by age, cohort, calendar year, and gender for education levels: ≤8th grade, 9th-11th grade, high school graduate or GED, some college, and college degree or above. Further analyses were conducted to identify the demographic factors (race/ethnicity and birthplace) that may explain the smoking patterns by education. Analyses were conducted in 2020-2021.

RESULTS

Smoking disparities by education have increased by birth cohort. In recent cohorts, initiation probabilities were highest among individuals with 9th-11th-grade education and lowest among individuals with at least a college degree. Cessation probabilities were higher among those with higher education. Current smoking prevalence decreased over time across all education groups, with important differences by gender. However, it decreased more rapidly among individuals with ≤8th grade education, resulting in this group having the second lowest prevalence in recent cohorts. This may be driven by the increasing proportion of non-U.S. born Hispanics in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although smoking is decreasing by cohort across all education groups, disparities in smoking behaviors by education have widened in recent cohorts. Demographic changes for the ≤8th-grade education group need special consideration in analyses of tobacco use by education.

Patterns of Birth Cohort‒Specific Smoking Histories in Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Smoking prevalence has decreased considerably in Brazil from 34.8% in 1989 to 12.6% in 2019 owing to the implementation of strong tobacco control policies. However, recent data show that the downward trend may be stagnating. Detailed analyses of historical smoking patterns by birth cohort could guide tobacco control decision making in Brazil.

METHODS

Using the 2008 Global Adult Tobacco Survey and the 2013 and 2019 National Health Surveys, historical smoking patterns in Brazil were estimated, supplemented with data from the 2006‒2019 Surveillance System of Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases by Telephone Interviews. Age‒period‒cohort models with constrained natural splines were applied to estimate the annual probabilities of smoking initiation and cessation, current smoker prevalence, and mean cigarettes smoked per day by age, gender, and birth cohort. Analysis was conducted in 2021‒2022.

RESULTS

Current smoker prevalence has declined considerably since the 1950 and 1955 birth cohorts for males and females, respectively, reflecting decreased smoking initiation and increased smoking-cessation probabilities over time. Among female cohorts born on or after 2000, smoking initiation may be increasing even as their smoking cessation has increased considerably. Mean cigarettes smoked per day has remained relatively constant across period and cohorts, showing only a minor decrease among males.

CONCLUSIONS

These detailed cohort-specific smoking parameters can be used to inform models that evaluate the impact of tobacco use and policies on long-term health outcomes and guide public health decision making in Brazil. Stagnant mean cigarettes smoked per day, increasing female smoking initiation, and limited improvement in male cessation among recent cohorts present challenges to tobacco control.

Using the Past to Understand the Future of U.S. and Global Smoking Disparities: A Birth Cohort Perspective

U.S. smoking-related disparities persist, but data evaluating how smoking patterns across diverse populations have changed by birth cohort are lacking. Worldwide, smoking continues to exact harm, especially to low- and middle-income nations with less historical data for smoking analyses. The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Lung Working Group previously generated smoking histories for the whole U.S. population using an age, period, and birth cohort (APC) methodological framework. These inputs have been used in numerous models to simulate future patterns of smoking and to evaluate the potential impact of policies. However, the absence of detailed model-ready inputs on smoking behaviors for diverse U.S. populations has been a barrier to research evaluating future trends in smoking-related disparities or the projected impacts of policies across sociodemographic groups. This supplement issue provides new estimates of smoking behaviors with detailed historical data by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, and for each of the 50 U.S. states and Washington, DC. All-cause mortality relative risks associated with smoking by race/ethnicity and educational attainment are also available for the first time. Finally, the supplement issue presents comprehensive smoking histories for Brazil, demonstrating the application of this methodology to resource-limited settings. Collectively, these data aim to offer insight into future U.S. and global smoking disparities and accelerate research on tobacco control policies that advance health equity. This effort will allow tobacco simulation models to account comprehensively for population diversity, thereby enabling researchers to develop more sophisticated analyses of tobacco use and control interventions.

Mortality Relative Risks by Smoking, Race/Ethnicity, and Education

INTRODUCTION

The impact of cigarette smoking on mortality is well studied, with estimates of the relative mortality risks for the overall population widely available. However, age-specific mortality estimates for different sociodemographic groups in the U.S. are lacking.

METHODS

Using the 1987-2018 National Health Interview Survey Linked Mortality Files through 2019, all-cause mortality relative risks (RRs) were estimated for current smokers or recent quitters and long-term quitters compared with those for never smokers. Stratified Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate RRs by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and educational attainment. RRs were also assessed for current smokers or recent quitters by smoking intensity and for long-term quitters by years since quitting. The analysis was conducted in 2021-2022.

RESULTS

All-cause mortality RRs among current smokers or recent quitters were generally highest for non-Hispanic White individuals than for never smokers, followed by non-Hispanic Black individuals, and were lowest for Hispanic individuals. RRs varied greatly by educational attainment; generally, higher-education groups had greater RRs associated with smoking than lower-education groups. Conversely, the RRs by years since quitting among long-term quitters did not show clear differences across race/ethnicity and education groups. Age-specific RR patterns varied greatly across racial/ethnic and education groups as well as by gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Age-specific all-cause mortality rates associated with smoking vary considerably by sociodemographic factors. Among high-education groups, lower underlying mortality rates for never smokers result in correspondingly high RR estimates for current smoking. These estimates can be incorporated in modeling analyses to assess tobacco control interventions' impact on smoking-related health disparities between different sociodemographic groups.

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

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

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.

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.