Effect of CT screening on smoking habits at 1-year follow-up in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST)

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.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ground-glass nodule-like lung cancer

Lung cancer has had one of the highest incidences and mortality in the world over the last few decades, which has aided in the promotion and popularization of screening for lung ground-glass nodules (GGNs). People have great psychological anxiety about GGN because of the chance that it will develop into lung cancer, which makes clinical treatment of GGN a generally excessive phenomenon. Overdiagnosis in screening has recently been mentioned in the literature. An important research emphasis of screening is how to reduce the incidence of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This paper discusses from different aspects how to characterize the occurrence of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, how to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and future screening, follow-up, and treatment approaches.

Screening for lung cancer: 2023 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

Lung cancer is the leading cause of mortality and person-years of life lost from cancer among US men and women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced lung cancer mortality. Our objective was to update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2013 lung cancer screening (LCS) guideline for adults at high risk for lung cancer. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for screening to health care providers and their patients who are at high risk for lung cancer due to a history of smoking. The ACS Guideline Development Group (GDG) utilized a systematic review of the LCS literature commissioned for the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 LCS recommendation update; a second systematic review of lung cancer risk associated with years since quitting smoking (YSQ); literature published since 2021; two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network-validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening; an epidemiologic and modeling analysis examining the effect of YSQ and aging on lung cancer risk; and an updated analysis of benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios from LCS and follow-up examinations. The GDG also examined disease burden data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. The GDG judged that the overall evidence was moderate and sufficient to support a strong recommendation for screening individuals who meet the eligibility criteria. LCS in men and women aged 50-80 years is associated with a reduction in lung cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports LCS for men and women older than 80 years who are in good health. The ACS recommends annual LCS with low-dose computed tomography for asymptomatic individuals aged 50-80 years who currently smoke or formerly smoked and have a ≥20 pack-year smoking history (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). Before the decision is made to initiate LCS, individuals should engage in a shared decision-making discussion with a qualified health professional. For individuals who formerly smoked, the number of YSQ is not an eligibility criterion to begin or to stop screening. Individuals who currently smoke should receive counseling to quit and be connected to cessation resources. Individuals with comorbid conditions that substantially limit life expectancy should not be screened. These recommendations should be considered by health care providers and adults at high risk for lung cancer in discussions about LCS. If fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States.

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.

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.

The impact of low-dose CT on smoking behavior among non-smokers, former-smokers, and smokers: A population-based screening cohort in rural China

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening may provide a "teachable moment" for the smoking cessation and relapse prevention. However, the impact of lung cancer screening on smoking initiation in non-smokers has not been reported.

METHODS

A baseline smoking behavior survey was conducted in 2000 participants who were screened by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) from 2014 to 2018. All participants were re-surveyed on their smoking behavior in 2019. Of these, 312 participants were excluded, leaving 1688 participants in the final analysis. The smoking initiation rate in baseline non-smokers, the relapse rate in baseline former smokers, and the abstinence rate in baseline current smokers were calculated, respectively. The associations between screening results, demographic characteristics, and smoking behavior change were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, smoking prevalence significantly decreased from 52.6% to 49.1%. The prevalence of smoking initiation, relapse, and abstinence in baseline non-smokers, former, and current smokers was 16.8%, 22.9%, and 23.7%, respectively. The risk of smoking initiation in baseline non-smokers was significantly higher in those with negative screening result (adjusted OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.27-6.94). Compared to smokers who only received baseline screening, the chance of smoking abstinence in baseline current smokers was reduced by over 80% in those who attended 5 rounds of screening (adjusted OR = 0.15, 95% CI:0.08-0.27). No significant associations were found between smoking relapse and prior screening frequency, with at least one positive screening result. Age, gender, occupational exposure, income, and smoking pack years were also associated with smoking behavior changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall decreased smoking prevalence indicated an overwhelming effect of "teachable moment" on "license to smoke." A tailored smoking cessation strategy should be integrated into lung cancer screening.

Latent constructs identified in older individuals who smoke cigarettes and are eligible for lung cancer screening: Factor analysis of baseline data from the PLUTO smoking cessation trial

Introduction

Lung cancer screening (LCS) combined with smoking cessation intervention is currently recommended for older individuals with a history of heavy smoking. Tailoring tobacco treatment for this patient population of older, people who smoke (PWS) may improve cessation rates while efficiently using limited smoking cessation resources. Although some older people who smoke will need more intensive treatment to achieve sustained abstinence, others may be successful with less intensive treatment. A framework to identify them a priori would be helpful to distribute smoking cessation resources accordingly.

Methods

Baseline demographic, smoking, and health data are reported from a randomized clinical trial of longitudinal smoking cessation interventions delivered in the setting of LCS. Candidate variables were factor analyzed to identify latent factors, or constructs, to identify subgroups of older participants among the heterogenous population of older people who smoke.

Results

We identified three factor-derived constructs: self-reported health status, heaviness of smoking, and nicotine dependence. Nicotine dependence was moderately correlated with both of the other two factors.

Conclusions

This factor analysis of baseline participant characteristics identified a set of latent constructs – based on a few practical clinical variables -- that can be used to classify the heterogenous population of older people who smoke to identify. We propose this framework to identify subgroups of people who smoke who might successfully quit with less intense treatment at the time of lung cancer screening.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

Examining Tobacco Treatment Perceptions and Barriers among Black versus Non-Black Adults Attending Lung Cancer Screening

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening for patients at high risk based on age and smoking history. Understanding the characteristics of patients attending lung cancer screening, including potential barriers to quitting smoking, may inform ways to engage these high-risk patients in tobacco treatment and address health disparities. Patients attending lung cancer screening who currently smoke cigarettes completed a survey at Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale-New Haven (N = 74) and the Medical University of South Carolina (N = 73) at the time of their appointment. The survey assessed demographics, smoking history, and perceptions and concerns about quitting smoking.

Patients were 55 to 76 years old (mean = 63.3, SD = 5.3), N = 64 (43.5%) female, and N = 31 (21.1%) non-Hispanic Black. Patients smoked 16.3 cigarettes per day on average (SD = 9.2) and rated interest in quitting smoking in the next month as moderate (mean = 5.6, SD = 3.1, measured from 0 = "very definitely no" to 10 = "very definitely yes"). The most frequently endorsed concerns about quitting smoking were missing smoking (70.7%), worry about having strong urges to smoke (63.9%), and concerns about withdrawal symptoms (59.9%). In comparison with other races/ethnicities, Black patients were less likely to report concerns about withdrawal symptoms and more likely to report smoking less now and perceiving no need to quit. Findings identified specific barriers for tobacco treatment and differences by race/ethnicity among patients attending lung cancer screening, including concerns about withdrawal symptoms and perceived need to quit. Identifying ways to promote tobacco treatment is important for reducing morbidity and mortality among this high-risk population.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

The current study examines patient characteristics and tobacco treatment perceptions and barriers among patients attending lung cancer screening who continue to smoke cigarettes that may help inform ways to increase treatment engagement and address tobacco-related health disparities to reduce morbidity and mortality from smoking.

Receipt of Tobacco Treatment and One-Year Smoking Cessation Rates Following Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

Implementation of effective smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening has been identified as a high-priority research gap, but knowledge of current practices to guide process improvement is limited due to the slow uptake of screening and dearth of data to assess cessation-related practices and outcomes under real-world conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate cessation treatment receipt and 1-year post-screening cessation outcomes within the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA-the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Design Observational study using administrative data from electronic medical records (EMR). Patients Currently smoking Veterans who received a first lung cancer screening test using low-dose CT (LDCT) between January 2014 and June 2018. Main Outcomes Tobacco treatment received within the window of 30 days before and 30 days after LDCT; 1-year quit rates based on EMR Smoking Health Factors data 6-18 months after LDCT. Key Results Of the 47,609 current smokers screened (95.3% male), 8702 (18.3%) received pharmacotherapy and/or behavioral treatment for smoking cessation; 531 (1.1%) received both. Of those receiving pharmacotherapy, only one in four received one of the most effective medications: varenicline (12.1%) or combination nicotine replacement therapy (14.3%). Overall, 5400 Veterans quit smoking-a rate of 11.3% (missing=smoking) or 13.5% (complete case analysis). Treatment receipt and cessation were associated with numerous sociodemographic, clinical, and screening-related factors.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year quit rates for Veterans receiving lung cancer screening in VHA are similar to those reported in LDCT clinical trials and cohort studies (i.e., 10-17%). Only 1% of Veterans received the recommended combination of pharmacotherapy and counseling, and the most effective pharmacotherapies were not the most commonly received ones. The value of screening within VHA could be improved by addressing these treatment gaps, as well as the observed disparities in treatment receipt or cessation by race, rurality, and psychiatric conditions.

Association between Low-Dose Computed Tomography Results and 1-Year Smoking Cessation in a Residential Smoking Cessation Program

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global health threat. Smoking and smoking-related lung diseases are risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection. This study investigated whether low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan results affected the success of 1-year smoking cessation. The Gyeonggi Southern Smoking Support Center performed the residential smoking cessation program from January to December 2018. During the program, LDCT was performed on 292 participants; 6 months later, follow-up via telephone or visit was conducted. Among the 179 participants who succeeded in smoking cessation for 6 months, telephone follow-up was conducted to determine whether there was a 12-month continuous smoking cessation. In order to evaluate the association between LDCT results and 12-month continuous abstinence rate (CAR), logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The CARs at 6 and 12 months were 61.3% and 31.5%, respectively. Indeterminate or suspicious malignant lung nodules were associated with a higher 12-month CAR (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.15–7.98), whereas psychiatric history was associated with a lower 12-month CAR (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03–0.15). These results suggest that abnormal lung screening results may encourage smokers to quit smoking.

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.

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.

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).

Externe Validierung einer Single-Item Skala zur Erfassung der Motivation zum Rauchstopp

Zusammenfassung. Zielsetzung: Die Motivation to Stop Scale (MTSS) ist eine englischsprachige Single-Item Skala zur Vorhersage von Rauchstoppversuchen. Ziel dieser Arbeit war die externe Validierung der deutschsprachigen Version der MTSS (Motivation zum Rauchstopp Skala, MRS) an einer Stichprobe von aktuell Tabakrauchenden in Deutschland. Methodik: Datenbasis war die Deutsche Befragung zum Rauchverhalten (DEBRA), eine deutschlandweite, persönlich-mündliche Haushaltsbefragung von Personen ab 14 Jahren mit telefonischer Nachbefragung nach 6 Monaten. Analysiert wurden Daten aus den ersten 18 Wellen (Juni 2016–Mai 2019) von 767 aktuell Tabakrauchenden. Die MRS (Stufe 1–7 = keine bis höchste Motivation) wurde bei der Erstbefragung eingesetzt. Bei der Nachbefragung wurde die Anzahl der Rauchstoppversuche seit Erstbefragung erfasst. Logistische Regression wurde durchgeführt und die diskriminative Genauigkeit der MRS mittels Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC-AUC) berechnet. Ergebnisse: Bei Erstbefragung waren 61,1 % ( n = 469; 95 % Konfidenzintervall (KI) = 57.7–64.6) der 767 Rauchenden nicht zum Rauchstopp motiviert (MRS-Stufe 1–2). Insgesamt unternahmen 185 der 767 Rauchenden (24,1 %; 95 % KI = 21.1–27.1) zwischen der Erst- und Nachbefragung mindestens einen Rauchstoppversuch. Mit steigender Motivationsstufe auf der MRS nahm die Wahrscheinlichkeit für einen Rauchstoppversuch zu: Odds Ratio = 1.37, 95 % KI = 1.25–1.51, bei einer diskriminativen Genauigkeit von ROC-AUC = 0.64. Schlussfolgerung: Die MRS ist ein kurzes und valides Messinstrument zur Erfassung der Rauchstoppmotivation im deutschen Sprachraum.

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.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT in Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lung cancer continues to be one of the main causes of cancer death in Europe. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has shown high potential for screening of lung cancer in smokers, most recently in two European trials. The aim of this review was to assess lung cancer screening of smokers by LDCT with respect to clinical effectiveness, radiological procedures, quality of life, and changes in smoking behavior. We searched electronic databases in April 2020 for publications of randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on lung cancer and overall mortality, lung cancer morbidity, and harms of LDCT screening. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate effects on mortality. Forty-three publications on 10 RCTs were included. The meta-analysis of eight studies showed a statistically significant relative reduction of lung cancer mortality of 12% in the screening group (risk ratio = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97). Between 4% and 24% of screening-LDCT scans were classified as positive, and 84-96% of them turned out to be false positive. The risk of overdiagnosis was estimated between 19% and 69% of diagnosed lung cancers. Lung cancer screening can reduce disease-specific mortality in (former) smokers when stringent requirements and quality standards for performance are met.

Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening by Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aims to combine and analyze randomized clinical trials comparing computed tomography lung screening (CTLS) versus either no screening (NS) or chest x-ray (CXR) in subjects with cigarette smoking history, to provide a precise and reliable estimation of the benefits and harms associated with CTLS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from all published randomized trials comparing CTLS versus either NS or CXR in a highly tobacco-exposed population were collected, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Subgroup analyses by comparator (NS or CXR) were performed. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Nine eligible trials (88,497 patients) were included. Pooled analysis showed that CTLS is associated with: a significant reduction of lung cancer-related mortality (overall RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.98; NS RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92); a significant increase of early-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 2.84; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.58; NS RR, 3.33; 95% CI, 2.27 to 4.89; CXR RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.23); a significant decrease of late-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.83; NS RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80); a significant increase of resectability rate (NS RR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.76 to 3.74); a nonsignificant reduction of all-cause mortality (overall RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.05); and a significant increase of overdiagnosis rate (NS, 38%; 95% CI, 14 to 63). The analysis of lung cancer-related mortality by sex revealed nonsignificant differences between men and women (P = .21; I-squared = 33.6%).

CONCLUSION

Despite there still being uncertainty about overdiagnosis estimate, this meta-analysis suggested that the CTLS benefits outweigh harms, in subjects with cigarette smoking history, ultimately supporting the systematic implementation of lung cancer screening worldwide.

[Lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography : a systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

Bronchial cancer, often diagnosed at a late stage, is the leading cause of cancer death. As early detection could potentially lead to curative treatment, several studies have evaluated low-dose chest CT (LDCT) as a screening method. The main objective of this work is to determine the impact of LDCT screening on overall mortality of a smoking population.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomised controlled screening trials comparing LDCT with no screening or chest x-ray.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomised controlled trials were identified, seven of which reported mortality results. NSLT showed a significant reduction of 6.7% in overall mortality and 20% in lung cancer mortality after 6.5 years of follow-up. NELSON showed a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality of 24% at 10 years among men. LUSI and MILD showed a reduction in lung cancer mortality of 69% at 8 years among women and 39% at 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Screening for bronchial cancer is a complex issue. Clarification is needed regarding the selection of individuals, the definition of a positive result and the attitude towards a suspicious nodule.

Ongoing challenges in implementation of lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Europe and around the world. Although available therapies have undergone considerable development in the past decades, the five-year survival rate for lung cancer remains low. This sobering outlook results mainly from the advanced stages of cancer most patients are diagnosed with. As the population at risk is relatively well defined and early stage disease is potentially curable, lung cancer outcomes may be improved by screening. Several studies already show that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality. However, for a successful implementation of LCS programmes, several challenges have to be overcome: selection of high-risk individuals, standardization of nodule classification and measurement, specific training of radiologists, optimization of screening intervals and screening duration, handling of ancillary findings are some of the major points which should be addressed. Last but not least, the psychological impact of screening on screened individuals and the impact of potential false positive findings should not be neglected. The aim of this review is to discuss the different challenges of implementing LCS programmes and to give some hints on how to overcome them. Finally, we will also discuss the psychological impact of screening on quality of life and the importance of smoking cessation.

Provision of Smoking Cessation Resources in the Context of In-Person Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective at reducing mortality for high-risk smokers. Mortality benefits go beyond early cancer detection, because shared decision-making (SDM) may present a "teachable moment" to reinforce cessation and provide resources.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How well is smoking cessation performed during LCS SDM encounters, and what patient and provider characteristics are associated with smoking cessation assistance?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of current smokers participating in initial LCS SDM through a multisite program in Seattle, Washington, between 2015-2018. The LCS tracking database and electronic health record were reviewed for demographics, comorbidity data, and clinical encounter information. The primary outcome was provision of a smoking cessation resource, defined as referral to cessation resources, recommendation for nicotine replacement, or prescription for cessation medication. Participant and provider factor associations with the outcome were evaluated using χ² testing and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most of the 423 study participants were men (70%), with a median age of 61 (IQR, 58-66) years and median of 50 (41-72) pack-years of smoking. Only 26% of encounters had documentation consistent with SDM. Thirty-nine percent of participants received at least one smoking cessation resource, and only 5% received both counseling referrals and medication. In a multivariable model, the provision of any smoking cessation resource was half as likely in participants with higher levels of comorbidity (Charlson Index >2; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81), and half as likely if the ordering provider was not the patient's PCP or their specialist (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96).

INTERPRETATION

Overall provision of smoking cessation resources was moderate during SDM encounters for LCS, and lower in patients with more comorbidities and when not performed by the patient's PCP or specialist. Interventions are needed to improve smoking cessation counseling and resource utilization at the time of LCS encounters.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms.

RESULTS

This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Lung Nodule Detection based on Faster R-CNN Framework

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is a worldwide high-risk disease, and lung nodules are the main manifestation of early lung cancer. Automatic detection of lung nodules reduces the workload of radiologists, the rate of misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis. For this purpose, we propose a Faster R-CNN algorithm for the detection of these lung nodules.

METHOD

Faster R-CNN algorithm can detect lung nodules, and the training set is used to prove the feasibility of this technique. In theory, parameter optimization can improve network structure, as well as detection accuracy.

RESULT

Through experiments, the best parameters are that the basic learning rate is 0.001, step size is 70,000, attenuation coefficient is 0.1, the value of Dropout is 0.5, and the value of Batch Size is 64. Compared with other networks for detecting lung nodules, the optimized and improved algorithm proposed in this paper generally improves detection accuracy by more than 20% when compared with the other traditional algorithms.

CONCLUSION

Our experimental results have proved that the method of detecting lung nodules based on Faster R-CNN algorithm has good accuracy and therefore, presents potential clinical value in lung disease diagnosis. This method can further assist radiologists, and also for researchers in the design and development of the detection system for lung nodules.

Real-World Lung Cancer CT Screening Performance, Smoking Behavior, and Adherence to Recommendations: Lung-RADS Category and Smoking Status Predict Adherence

BACKGROUND. Low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) has been shown to decrease mortality in persons with a significant smoking history. However, adherence in real-world LCS programs is significantly lower than in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess real-world LDCT LCS performance and factors predictive of adherence to LCS recommendations. METHODS. We retrospectively identified all persons who underwent at least two LCS examinations from 2014 to 2019. Patient demographics, smoking history and behavior changes, Lung-RADS category, PPV, NPV, and adherence to screening recommendations were recorded. Predictors of adherence were assessed via univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS. A total of 260 persons returned for follow-up LDCT (57.7% had two, 34.2% had three, 7.7% had four, and 0.4% had five LDCT examinations). A total of 43 of 260 (16.5%) had positive (Lung-RADS category 3 or above) scans, of which 27 of 260 persons (10.3%) were graded as Lung-RADS category 3, eight of 260 (3.1%) were category 4A, six of 260 (2.3%) were category 4B, and two of 260 (0.8%) were category 4X. Cancer was diagnosed in four of the 260 (three with lung cancer and one with metastatic melanoma). A total of 143 of 260 (55.0%) persons were current smokers at baseline and 121 of 260 (46.5%) were current smokers at the last round of LCS. LCS had sensitivity of 100.0%, specificity of 84.8%, PPV of 9.3%, and NPV of 100%. Overall adherence was 43.0% but increased progressively with higher Lung-RADS category (Lung-RADS 1: 33.2%; Lung-RADS 2: 46.3%; Lung-RADS 3: 53.8%; Lung-RADS 4A: 77.8%; Lung-RADS 4B: 83.3%; Lung-RADS 4X: 100%; p < .001). was also higher in former versus current smokers (50.0% vs 36.2%; p < .001). Being a former smoker and having a nodule that is Lung-RADS category 3 or greater were the only significant independent predictors of adherence. CONCLUSION. Our real-world LCS program showed very high sensitivity and NPV, but moderate specificity and very low PPV. Adherence to LCS recommendations increased with former versus current smokers and in those with positive (Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) LCS examinations. Adherence was less than 50.0% in current smokers and persons with negative (Lung-RADS categories 1 or 2) LCS examinations. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results offer a road map for targeted performance improvement by focusing on LCS subjects less likely to remain in the program, such as persons with negative LCS examinations and persons who continue to smoke, potentially improving LCS cost effectiveness and maximizing its societal benefits.

Feasibility of implementing a national lung cancer screening program: Interim results from the Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS)

Background

Lung cancer screening conducted in high-risk group using low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) has been reported as an effective method to reduce lung cancer mortality in two large randomized-control trials. However, the effectiveness is uncertain when lung cancer screening is expanded to a nationwide population-based program.

Methods

The Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a single-arm cohort study that was conducted from February 2017 to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an organized national lung cancer screening program in Korea. High-risk population aged 55–74 years with more than a 30-pack-year smoking history was recruited. Smoking history was obtained from administering questionnaires at national health screening programs or public smoking cessation programs which are already established programs in Korea. The screening results were reported using the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), suggested by the American College of Radiology. K-LUCAS was performed by a network-based diagnosis supporting system using a computer-aided detection (CAD) program to maintain screening quality. Current smokers were provided with mandatory smoking counseling.

Results

Among 71,829 participants aged 50 years or older in the national health screening program, 5,975 (8.3%) were eligible for lung cancer screening. Among them, 1,062 (17.8%) refused to participate in K-LUCAS. Additionally, 779 participants were recruited in the smoking cessation program. Thus, a total of 5,692 eligible high-risk participants were recruited in this study. Among them, 865 (15.2%) had positive screening results, which requires a further examination; 529 (9.3%) had Lung-RADS category 3 (indeterminate), and 336 (5.9%) had category 4 (suspicious of lung cancer); 42 (0.7%) had confirmed lung cancer. Approximately 66.7% had early-stage lung cancer: 24 (57.1%), stage I and 4 (9.5%), stage II. Six (1.1%) patients developed complications at the time of diagnosis, including one death. The anxiety level related to cancer screening was low. Participation in screening encouraged motivation to quit smoking.

Conclusions

K-LUCAS provided promising evidence supporting the implementation of a national lung cancer screening program to detect early stage lung cancer and promote smoking cessation for participants in Asian population.

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening on participants' attitudes and behaviour: a study of industry workers in Split, Croatia

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the changes in personal attitudes and behaviour before and after negative serological test results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional questionnaire survey.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire was conducted with 200 industry workers (68% males and 32% females) who had previously tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The survey examined participants' self-reported general attitudes towards coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), their sense of fear, as well as their behaviour towards protective measures before and after the testing.

RESULTS

Participants perceived the disease as a severe health threat and acknowledged that the protective measures were appropriate. Respondents reported a high level of adherence to measures and low level of fear, both before and after the testing. Although these indicators were statistically significantly reduced after the test (P < 0.004), they did not result in irresponsible non-adherence behaviours. Almost all respondents attributed their application of personal protection measures to factors other than the results of serological screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Serological tests do not contribute to irresponsible non-adherence behaviours in an environment where protective measures are efficient. However, they may help reduce fear within society and working environments.

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.

[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.

Lung cancer screening: does pulmonary nodule detection affect a range of smoking behaviours?

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20%. Screen-detected abnormalities may provide teachable moments for smoking cessation. This study assesses impact of pulmonary nodule detection on smoking behaviours within the first UK trial of a novel auto-antibody test, followed by chest x-ray and serial CT scanning for early detection of lung cancer (Early Cancer Detection Test-Lung Cancer Scotland Study).

METHODS

Test-positive participants completed questionnaires on smoking behaviours at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Logistic regression compared outcomes between nodule (n = 95) and normal CT groups (n = 174) at 3 and 6 months follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the nodule and normal CT groups for any smoking behaviours and odds ratios comparing the nodule and normal CT groups did not vary significantly between 3 and 6 months. There was some evidence the nodule group were more likely to report significant others wanted them to stop smoking than the normal CT group (OR across 3- and 6-month time points: 3.04, 95% CI: 0.95, 9.73; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Pulmonary nodule detection during lung cancer screening has little impact on smoking behaviours. Further work should explore whether lung cancer screening can impact on perceived social pressure and promote smoking cessation.

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

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

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

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

Challenges to Educating Smokers About Lung Cancer Screening: a Qualitative Study of Decision Making Experiences in Primary Care

We sought to qualitatively explore how those at highest risk for lung cancer, current smokers, experienced, understood, and made decisions about participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) after being offered in the target setting for implementation, routine primary care visits. Thirty-seven current smokers were identified within 4 weeks of being offered LCS at seven sites participating in the Veterans Health Administration Clinical Demonstration Project and interviewed via telephone using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Transcripts were coded by two raters and analyzed thematically using iterative inductive content analysis. Five challenges to smokers' decision-making lead to overestimated benefits and minimized risks of LCS: fear of lung cancer fixated focus on inflated screening benefits; shame, regret, and low self-esteem stemming from continued smoking situated screening as less averse and more beneficial; screening was mistakenly believed to provide general evaluation of lungs and reassurance was sought about potential damage caused by smoking; decision-making was deferred to providers; and indifference about numerical educational information that was poorly understood. Biased understanding of risks and benefits was complicated by emotion-driven, uninformed decision-making. Emotional and cognitive biases may interfere with educating and supporting smokers' decision-making and may require interventions tailored for their unique needs.

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.

Systematic review of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for older smokers from deprived backgrounds

INTRODUCTION

The associations between smoking prevalence, socioeconomic group and lung cancer outcomes are well established. There is currently limited evidence for how inequalities could be addressed through specific smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) for a lung cancer screening eligible population. This systematic review aims to identify the behavioural elements of SCIs used in older adults from low socioeconomic groups, and to examine their impact on smoking abstinence and psychosocial variables.

METHOD

Systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL up to November 2018 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of SCIs and their impact on relevant outcomes including smoking abstinence, quit motivation, nicotine dependence, perceived social influence and quit determination. Included studies were restricted to socioeconomically deprived older adults who are at (or approaching) eligibility for lung cancer screening. Narrative data synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable, with most studies using self-reported smoking cessation and varying length of follow-up. There were limited data to identify the optimal form of behavioural SCI for the target population. Intense multimodal behavioural counselling that uses incentives and peer facilitators, delivered in a community setting and tailored to individual needs indicated a positive impact on smoking outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Tailored, multimodal behavioural interventions embedded in local communities could potentially support cessation among older, deprived smokers. Further high-quality research is needed to understand the effectiveness of SCIs in the context of lung screening for the target population.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018088956.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Smoking Cessation in the ITALUNG Lung Cancer Screening: What Does “Teachable Moment” Mean?

Background

Changes in smoking habits and predictors of smoking cessation were examined in the randomized ITALUNG lung cancer screening trial.

Methods

In three centers, eligible smokers or ex-smokers (55–69 years, ≥20 pack-years in the last 10 years) were randomized to receive annual invitation for low-dose computed tomography for 4 years or usual care. At invitation, subjects received written information for a free smoking cessation program. Quitting outcome was assessed at year 4.

Results

Among participants who completed baseline assessments and year 4 screening, higher quitting (20.8% vs. 16.7%, p = .029) and lower relapse (6.41% vs. 7.56%, p = .50) rates were observed in the active screening group as compared to the usual-care control group. Corresponding figures in the intention-to-treat analysis were as follows: 16.04% versus 14.64% (p = .059) and 4.88% versus 6.43% (p = .26). Quitting smoking was significantly associated to male gender, lower pack-years, and having pulmonary nodules at baseline. Center-specific analyses showed a threefold statistically significant higher probability to quit associated with participating in the smoking cessation program. A subsample of smokers of the scan group from one center showed higher quitting rates over 12-month follow-up as compared to matched controls from the general population who underwent the same smoking cessation program.

Conclusions

Consistently with previous reports, in the ITALUNG trial, screened subjects showed significantly higher quit rates than controls, and higher quit rates were associated with both the presence of pulmonary nodules and participating in a smoking cessation program. Maximal effect on quitting outcome was observed with the participation in the smoking cessation program.

Implications

Participating in lung cancer screening promotes smoking cessation. An effective “teachable moment” may be achieved when the smoking cessation intervention is structured as integral part of the screening clinical visits and conducted by a dedicated team of health care professionals. Standardized guidelines for smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening are needed.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

National recommendations for lung cancer screening for former and current smokers aged 55-80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history create demand to implement efficient and effective systems to offer smoking cessation on a large scale. These older, high-risk smokers differ from participants in past clinical trials of behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for tobacco dependence. There is a gap in knowledge about how best to design systems to extend reach and treatments to maximize smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. Eight clinical trials, seven funded by the National Cancer Institute and one by the Veterans Health Administration, address this gap and form the SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration. This paper describes methodological issues related to the design of these clinical trials: clinical workflow, participant eligibility criteria, screening indication (baseline or annual repeat screen), assessment content, interest in stopping smoking, and treatment delivery method and dose, all of which will affect tobacco treatment outcomes. Tobacco interventions consider the "teachable moment" offered by lung cancer screening, how to incorporate positive and negative screening results, and coordination of smoking cessation treatment with clinical events associated with lung cancer screening. Unique data elements, such as perceived risk of lung cancer and costs of tobacco treatment, are of interest. Lung cancer screening presents a new and promising opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality resulting from lung cancer that can be amplified by effective smoking cessation treatment. SCALE teamwork and collaboration promise to maximize knowledge gained from the clinical trials.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I² = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I² = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Implementation planning for lung cancer screening in China

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

Capitalizing on a teachable moment: Development of a targeted self-help smoking cessation intervention for patients receiving lung cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the current study was to develop and examine the feasibility and acceptability of a self-help smoking cessation intervention targeted to the teachable moment of smokers undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a multi-phase qualitative approach, including focus groups (N = 15) and learner verification interviews (N = 16) to develop a targeted intervention for patients receiving a LDCT screening, by extending and modifying a previously validated, self-help intervention. The new intervention was then tested in a feasibility study for acceptability and receptivity by smokers (N = 18) receiving a LDCT screening.

RESULTS

The main themes that emerged from the focus group findings included a need to address the counterproductive thoughts regarding a negative lung screen result, the desire to enjoy a healthy and smoke-free retirement, the need to increase self-efficacy regarding smoking cessation, and the desire to see statistics regarding survival after quitting smoking. Learner verification findings showed that participants responded favorably to most booklet and pamphlet changes. Minor changes were made to improve comprehension and enhance self-efficacy. Formative findings led to the development of a new initial booklet titled, "Lung Cancer Screening & Quitting Smoking: Taking Control of Your Health," as well as modifications of the existing self-help cessation intervention. The intervention was designed to be initiated at the LDCT appointment, prior to receipt of scan results, and with minimal disruption of clinic work-flow. Results from the feasibility study indicated that acceptability and satisfaction with the new intervention were high.

CONCLUSION

A validated self-help smoking-cessation intervention was modified for smokers receiving LDCT screening for lung cancer based on formative research guided by the teachable moment concept. The new intervention is ready for testing in a randomized controlled trial.

Determinants of motivation to quit in smokers screened for the early detection of lung cancer: a qualitative study

Background

The promotion of smoking cessation within lung cancer screening could lead to benefits for smoking-related disease and improve cost-effectiveness of screening. Little is known about how smokers respond to lung cancer screening and how this impacts smoking behaviour. We aimed to understand how lung cancer screening influences individual motivations about smoking, including in those who have stopped smoking since screening.

Methods

Thirty one long-term smokers aged 51–74 took part in semi-structured interviews about smoking. They had been screened with the EarlyCDT-Lung Test (13 positive result; 18 negative) as part of the Early Cancer Detection Test Lung Cancer Scotland Study. They were purposively sampled for interview based on their self-reported post-screening smoking behaviour. Eleven participants had stopped smoking since screening. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Two key overarching themes were interpretations of screening test results and emotional responses to those interpretations. Participants’ understanding of the risk implied by their test result was often inaccurate, for example a negative result interpreted as an ‘all-clear’ from lung cancer and a positive result as meaning lung cancer would definitely develop. Those interpretations led to emotional responses (fear, shock, worry, relief, indifference) influencing motivations about smoking. Other themes included a wake-up call causing changes in perceived risk of smoking-related disease, a feeling that now is the time to stop smoking and family influences. There was no clear pattern in smoking motivations in those who received positive or negative test results. Of those who had stopped smoking, some cited screening experiences as the sole motivation, some cited screening along with other coinciding factors, and others cited non-screening reasons. Cues to change were experienced at different stages of the screening process. Some participants indicated they underwent screening to try and stop smoking, while others expressed little or no desire to stop.

Conclusions

We observed complex and individualised motivations about smoking following lung cancer screening. To be most effective, smoking cessation support in this context should explore understanding of screening test results and may need to be highly tailored to individual emotional responses to screening.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6211-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Surgeon-Led Imaging Review for Patients with Periampullary Disease: An Important Aspect of the Preoperative Consultation

Background: The perceived benefit of utilizing patients' own imaging studies as a preoperative educational tool has not been studied. Methods: Pancreaticobiliary surgeons reviewed key findings of imaging studies with patients to educate about their diagnosis and inform treatment recommendations. Patient surveys were administered pre- and postvisit by an independent researcher to assess the impact of this practice. Results: Only 55% of patients stated that it was important to see their imaging studies before the consultation. However, after the visit, 90% of patients understood their disease process better, and 86% of patients had a clearer understanding of their planned operation having seen their imaging studies. This represents significant improvement in patients' understanding of their medical condition (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Reviewing imaging findings with patients is an underappreciated aspect of the surgical consultation. It is a powerful educational tool that takes little time, improves patient understanding, and enhances patient experience.

Smoking-related health beliefs and smoking behavior in the National Lung Screening Trial

Understanding the association between smoking-related health beliefs and smoking cessation in the context of lung screening is important for effective cessation treatment. The purpose of the current study is to explore how current smokers' self-reported smoking-related health cognitions (e.g., self-efficacy) and emotions (e.g., worry) are related to cessation. This study utilized longitudinal data from current smokers (age 55-74) in a sub-study of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; 2002-2006; N = 2738). Logistic regression analyses examined associations of cessation at last assessment with smoking-related health cognitions and emotions, demographics, and two-way interactions among smoking-related health cognition and emotion variables, gender, and age. Over 37% (n = 1028) of smokers had quit at their last assessment of smoking status. Simple logistic regressions showed the likelihood of quitting was greater among participants reporting higher perceived severity of smoking-related diseases (OR = 1.17, p = .04), greater self-efficacy for quitting (OR = 1.32, p < .001), and fewer perceived barriers to quitting (OR = 0.82, p = .01). Likelihood of quitting was lower among non-Hispanic Black participants (versus non-Hispanic White participants) (OR = 0.68, p = .04) and higher among older participants (OR = 1.03, p = .002). Multiple logistic regression showed that participants reporting greater self-efficacy for quitting (B = 0.09, p = .05), fewer perceived barriers to quitting (B = -0.22, p = .01), and who were older (B = 0.03, p < .01) were more likely to quit smoking. These results suggest that, among heavy smokers undergoing lung screening, smoking-related health cognitions and emotions are associated with smoking cessation. These health beliefs must be considered an integral component of cessation in screening settings.

The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (U.S.) and is the second most common non-skin cancer among men and women, accounting for about 30% of cancer-related deaths. There is clear and accumulating evidence that continued tobacco use has multiple adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes, including greater probability of recurrence, second primary malignancies, reduced survival, greater symptom burden, and poorer quality of life (QOL). Recent findings suggest an avenue to significantly mitigate the impact of smoking on lung cancer mortality rates through the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Based on the reviewed evidence (type B), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines of 2015 recommend screening combined with smoking cessation interventions for high-risk heavy smokers and recent quitters. These practice changes offer opportunities to develop novel smoking cessation strategies tailored to highly specific settings that aim to amplify the survivorship gains expected from screening alone. However, there is a paucity of research and data that speaks to the feasibility and efficacy of providing smoking cessation treatment specifically within the context of the LDCT lung cancer screening environment. While some studies have attempted to characterize the parameters within which smoking cessation interventions should be implemented in this context, further research is needed to explore relevant factors such as the format, components, and timing of interventions, as well as the influence of risk perceptions and results of the screening itself on motivation and ability to quit smoking.