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

To establish a prognostic model of epidermal growth factor receptor mutated non-small cell lung cancer patients based on Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression

BACKGROUND

There is currently a shortage of effective diagnostic tools that are used for identifying long-term survival among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. This research utilized the development of a prognostic model to assist clinicians in forecasting the survival over 24 months.

METHODS

In Phase III and IV those patients who were diagnosed with EGFR mutation from January 2018 to June 2022 were enrolled into the lung cancer group of Thoracic Surgery Department of Hebei Provincial People's Hospital. Long-run survival was stated as survival for 24 months after being diagnosed. A multivariate prognostic pattern was constructed by means of internal validation and binary logistic regression by bootstrapping. One nomogram was created with a view to boosting the explanation and applicability of the pattern.

RESULTS

A total of 603 patients with EGFR mutation were registered. Elements linked to the whole survival beyond 24 months were age (OR 6.15); female (OR 1.79); functional status (ECOG 0-1) (OR 5.26); Exon 20 insertion mutation deletion (OR 2.08); No central nervous system metastasis (OR 2.66), targeted therapy (OR 0.43); Immunotherapy (OR 0.24). The model has good internal validation.

CONCLUSION

Seven pretreatment clinicopathological variables predicted survival over 24 months. That pattern owns a great discriminative capability. It is hypothesized that this pattern is capable of assisting in selecting the optimal treatment sequence for NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.

Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST).

METHODS

Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks.

RESULTS

Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit.

CONCLUSIONS

There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

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.

Understanding the perceived benefits, barriers, and cues to action for lung cancer screening among Latinos: A qualitative study

Introduction

Rates of lung cancer screening among Latinos remain low. The purpose of the study was to understand the perceived benefits, barriers, and cues to action for lung cancer screening among Latinos.

Methods

Participants (N=20) were recruited using community-based recruitment strategies. Eligibility criteria included: 1) self-identified as Hispanic/Latino, 2) spoke English and/or Spanish, and 3) met the USA Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening. Interviews were conducted in Spanish and English, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Using the health belief model, a qualitative theoretical analysis was used to analyze the interviews.

Results

Participants' mean age was 58.3 years old (SD=5.8), half of the participants were female, 55% had completed high school or lower educational level, and 55% reported speaking more Spanish than English. All participants were currently smoking. Fourteen participants (70%) were unaware of lung cancer screening, and eighteen (90%) did not know they were eligible for lung cancer screening. Regarding lung cancer screening, participants reported multiple perceived benefits (e.g., smoking cessation, early detection of lung cancer, increased survivorship) and barriers (e.g., fear of outcomes, cost, lung cancer screening not being recommended by their clinician). Lastly, multiple cues to actions for lung cancer screening were identified (e.g., family as a cue to action for getting screened).

Conclusions

Most Latinos who were eligible for lung cancer screening were unaware of it and, when informed, they reported multiple perceived benefits, barriers, and cues to action. These factors provide concrete operational strategies to address lung cancer screening among Latinos.

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.

Tobacco treatment in the setting of lung cancer screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung cancer screening by low-dose CT is an increasingly implemented preventive medicine tool. Screening for lung cancer is incomplete without addressing problematic tobacco use, the greatest modifiable risk factor in the development of lung cancer. This review describes recent work related to lung cancer screening and treatment of tobacco use in that context.

RECENT FINDINGS

Implementation of lung cancer screening demonstrates socioeconomic disparities in terms of adherence to screening as well as likelihood of successful tobacco dependence treatment. Active tobacco dependence is a common comorbidity for patients undergoing lung cancer screening. The optimal implementation of tobacco dependence treatment in the context of lung cancer screening is still an area of active investigation.

SUMMARY

Treatment of tobacco dependence at time of lung cancer screening is a major opportunity for clinicians to intervene to reduce the major modifiable risk factor for lung cancer, tobacco use. Providing comprehensive tobacco dependence treatment is most effective using combination pharmacologic and behavioral interventions. Practices providing comprehensive treatment will benefit from accurate documentation for billing and coding and supplementing with external resources such as state Quit Lines.

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.

A telephone-based smoking cessation intervention for individuals with COVID-19: A randomized controlled feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Increasing evidence suggests that a diagnosis of a respiratory health condition, such as COVID-19, can prompt a smoker to quit, providing an opportunity to promote and support smoking cessation. However, mandatory quarantine, because of a COVID-19 infection, may stimulate an increase in smoking, making such efforts seem inappropriate or ineffective. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention for smokers with COVID-19 in Malta.

METHODS

An experimental design with a mixed-methods approach was adopted. Participants (n=80) were recruited from a COVID-19 testing center and equally randomized to the intervention (advised to quit and offered three or four telephone-based smoking cessation support sessions) and control (no intervention) groups. Both groups were asked about their smoking habits at baseline and at follow-up at 1 month and at 3 months. The participants in the intervention group were invited to provide feedback on the intervention using questionnaires and by holding interviews.

RESULTS

Participants were recruited at a rate of 74.1% between March and April 2022. Most participants were female (58.8%), with a mean age of 41.6 years who smoked about 13 cigarettes per day. The majority (75%) accepted the offered smoking cessation support, receiving an average of two to three sessions. Findings indicate that the participants were satisfied with the support, finding it useful for attempting to quit. More participants in the intervention group reported a serious quitting attempt and a 7-day point prevalence abstinence at any point during the first month. However, 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates did not differ at the follow-up at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that providing smoking cessation support to individuals with COVID-19 is feasible and well-received. However, the findings suggest that the intervention's impact may have been brief. Thus, further research is recommended before conducting a conclusive trial.

Lung cancer screening

Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.

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.