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

'Every Touch Point Is an Opportunity': Tobacco Control Experts' Views on How to Implement Smoking Cessation Interventions Within an Australian Lung Cancer Screening Program

BACKGROUND

Targeted lung cancer screening (LCS) presents unique opportunities for smoking cessation among high-risk individuals. Implementation requires consideration of context-specific determinants. We sought perspectives from tobacco control/smoking cessation experts on optimally implementing smoking cessation interventions in an Australian LCS program.

METHODS

Recruitment was via maximum variation and snowball sampling in 2022. Individual/pair interviews explored factors that may influence acceptability and feasibility, potential delivery models, and implementation strategies. We interpreted interview data using codebook thematic analysis, then mapped key topics against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and previous LCS expert-identified determinants.

RESULTS

Expert participants' (N = 30) roles included program/policy managers, researchers and clinicians, working in academia, not-for-profits/peak bodies and health departments. They emphasised the benefits of integrating smoking cessation interventions into routine LCS encounters. Key barriers included perceived professional and LCS participant reluctance, stigma, and rural access. Experts discouraged duplicating current cessation resources, and suggested prioritising implementation efforts. Flexible delivery models, addressing needs of priority populations (e.g., rural/remote, culturally and linguistically diverse), were recommended. Experts generally favoured a 'hybrid' intervention pathway, combining internal and external cessation services, to maximise feasibility and uptake. Training program staff on cessation intervention delivery and leadership buy-in were emphasised as essential requirements.

DISCUSSION

In this Australian tobacco control expert sample, there was near-unanimous support for embedding cessation interventions within routine LCS delivery and capitalising on opportunities to overcome current service delivery barriers. In conjunction with LCS participant perspectives, findings are relevant to planning and implementing cessation interventions in LCS contexts.

Gain-Framed Text Messages and Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation Among Lung Cancer Screening Patients: A Brief Report of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

People who undergo lung cancer screening (LCS) and continue to smoke are at risk for negative clinical outcomes and lowered survival and need effective smoking cessation interventions. This pilot study tested an 8-week intervention for smoking cessation after LCS. The participants (N = 40) were randomized to the intervention group (combination nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] plus gain-framed text messaging for 8 weeks) or the control group (standard cessation counseling) after LCS. Assessments were completed at 8-week and 3-month follow-ups, including self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence. The mean age was 64.4 years old (SD = 6.2); 32.5% were Black or African American; and 55% were female. At Week 8, 14.3% (3/21) of the participants in the intervention group were abstinent versus 0% (0/19) in the control group (p > 0.05). At 3-month follow-up, 4.8% (1/21) of the participants in the intervention group were abstinent versus 0% (0/19) in the control group. Among the intervention group participants, up to 52.4% used the provided patches and up to 61.9% used the provided lozenges during the study period. This study demonstrated modest quit rates for LCS patients receiving gain-framed text messages and NRT. The results highlight the need for more effective smoking cessation interventions for this priority population.

Exposure to major coronary heart disease events reduces lung cancer risk: a mendelian randomization study based on a European population

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to elucidate the causal relationship between major coronary heart disease events (MCHDE) and lung cancer incidence through mendelian randomization (MR), with the goal of providing evidence to inform more effective lung cancer screening and prevention strategies.

METHODS

Utilizing data from the IEU OpenGWAS project and FinnGen, this study employed a two-sample MR approach, with genetic variants serving as instrumental variables. Relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with MCHDE and lung cancer were carefully selected, with particular attention given to mitigating potential confounders, such as smoking behaviors and statin use.

RESULTS

The MR analysis, utilizing FinnGen's MCHDE as the exposure factor, revealed a significant reduction in the incidence of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [odds ratio (OR) 0.893, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.800-0.998] and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) [OR 0.684, 95% CI 0.500-0.936], highlighting the protective effect of MCHDE against these cancer subtypes. However, this protective effect was not observed for other types of lung cancer. Furthermore, substituting FinnGen's MCHDE with that from IEU OpenGWAS did not yield similar protective effects across various lung cancer subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that MCHDE reduce the risk of NSCLC in the U.K. population and SCLC in the Finnish population. However, given that the underlying mechanism through which MCHDE reduces the risk of NSCLC and SCLC remains unclear, it is premature to conclude that individuals exposed to MCHDE do not require lung cancer screening.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Implementation of high-quality lung cancer screening

More than a decade has passed since researchers in the Early Lung Cancer Action Project and the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to save lives of high-risk individuals from lung cancer through regular screening by low dose computed tomography scan. The emergence of the most recent findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung-cancer screening trial (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek [NELSON]) further strengthens and expands on this evidence. These studies demonstrate the benefit of integrating lung cancer screening into clinical practice, yet lung cancer continues to lead cancer mortality rates in the United States. Fewer than 20% of screen eligible individuals are enrolled in lung cancer screening, leaving millions of qualified individuals without the standard of care and benefit they deserve. This article, part of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) strategic plan, examines the impediments to successful adoption, dissemination, and implementation of lung cancer screening. Proposed solutions identified by the ACS NLCRT Implementation Strategies Task Group and work currently underway to address these challenges to improve uptake of lung cancer screening are discussed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The evidence supporting the benefit of lung cancer screening in adults who previously or currently smoke has led to widespread endorsement and coverage by health plans. Lung cancer screening programs should be designed to promote high uptake rates of screening among eligible adults, and to deliver high-quality screening and follow-up care.

Empowering minoritized Alabamians screened for lung cancer-The Alabama Lung Cancer Awareness Screening and Education (ALCASE) project

BACKGROUND

In Alabama only 4% of those eligible have been screened for lung cancer. The ALCASE project focused on navigating eligible individuals to lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Trained local staff enrolled screen eligible individuals from seven rural counties and one urban county. Demographics and knowledge of and barriers to lung cancer screening were collected using questionnaires. Education was provided and individuals were navigated to undergo screening. Descriptive statistics for enrolled and screened participants were computed using SAS 9.4. Debriefing interviews were conducted with the ALCASE staff regarding facilitators/barriers to implementing this project and lessons learned. Using NVivo, themes were identified through a combined deductive and inductive process.

RESULTS

In total, 447 people were contacted of which 257 were enrolled. Participants were predominantly African American (86.8%), female (56.8%), and 86.4% had health insurance. Study participants acknowledged the need for more education of lung cancer/screening procedures; help navigating clinics for screening services and having healthcare facilities close to home. The top five barriers to getting screened were transportation, financial issues, emotional concerns, healthcare insurance, and COVID-19. Of the 257, 106 participants (41%) completed a primary care referral and were screened for lung cancer. Debriefing interviews revealed: (i) Overall impressions of implementing ALCASE were positive. (ii) Barriers in implementing ALCASE were identified predominantly at the physician and institutional level. (iii) Facilitators in implementing ALCASE were identified at multiple levels. (iv) Suggestions on improving lung cancer screening leaned toward mitigating barriers at the institutional and structural level.

CONCLUSION

Ability to get screened is severely challenged by both personal and structural barriers.

Beyond lung cancer screening, an opportunity for early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening programs concern smokers at risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The LUMASCAN (LUng Cancer Screening, MArkers and low-dose computed tomography SCANner) study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of screening for these 3 diseases in a community population with centralized organization and to determine low-dose computed tomography (CT) markers associated with each disease.

METHODS

This cohort enrolled participants meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (v1.2014) in an organized lung cancer-screening program including low-dose CT scans; spirometry; evaluations of coronary artery calcifications (CACs); and a smoking cessation plan at inclusion, 1, and 2 years; then telephone follow-up. Outcomes were the participation rate and the proportion of participants affected by lung cancer, obstructive lung disease, or CVD events. Logistic-regression models were used to identify radiological factors associated with each disease.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 302 participants were enrolled: 61% men; median age 58.8 years; 77% active smoker; 11% diabetes; 38% hypertension; and 27% taking lipid-lowering agents. Inclusion, 1-year, and 2-year participation rates were 99%, 81%, 79%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 5.81 years, screenings detected 12 (4%) lung cancer, 9 of 12 via low-dose CT (78% localized) and 3 of 12 during follow-up (all stage IV), 83 (27%) unknown obstructive lung disease, and 131 (43.4%) moderate to severe CACs warranting a cardiology consultation. Preexisting COPD and moderate to severe CACs were associated with major CVD events with odds ratios of 1.98 (95% confident interval [CI] = 1.00 to 3.88) and 3.27 (95% CI = 1.72 to 6.43), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The LUMASCAN study demonstrated the feasibility of combined screening for lung cancer, COPD, and CVD in a community population. Its centralized organization enabled high participation and coordination of healthcare practitioners.

Tobacco quitline staffs' knowledge and attitudes about connecting quitline callers to lung cancer screening educational materials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of training quitline staff in lung cancer screening (LCS) on knowledge and attitudes towards connecting quitline callers to LCS educational materials.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-post evaluation within a larger implementation project in the U.S. to support LCS among quitline callers. From July 2020 to June 2021, staff from four quitline service providers completed surveys before and after training on LCS knowledge. After training, staff completed the acceptability of intervention measure, intervention appropriateness measure, and feasibility of the intervention measure.

RESULTS

A total of 245 staff completed the initial demographic survey (analytic sample), 130 completed the pre-training survey, and 225 completed the post-training survey. Staff were on average 47.4 years old and 76.7% were female. LCS knowledge improved after the training (n = 120, mean difference = +26.5%, 95% CI 21.6, 31.4, p < 0.001). Overall, staff felt that connecting quitline callers to LCS education materials was acceptable (M = 4.0, SD = 0.8), appropriate (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7), and feasible (M = 4.0, SD = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving training about LCS eligibility and the benefits and harms of screening improved LCS knowledge among quitline staff. Quitline staff found that connecting callers with LCS educational materials is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, and aligned with their primary mission.

HUNCHEST-II contributes to a shift to earlier-stage lung cancer detection: final results of a nationwide screening program

OBJECTIVES

The introduction of low-dose CT (LDCT) altered the landscape of lung cancer (LC) screening and contributed to the reduction of mortality rates worldwide. Here we report the final results of HUNCHEST-II, the largest population-based LDCT screening program in Hungary, including the screening and diagnostic outcomes, and the characteristics of the LC cases.

METHODS

A total of 4215 high-risk individuals aged between 50 and 75 years with a smoking history of at least 25 pack-years were assigned to undergo LDCT screening. Screening outcomes were determined based on the volume, growth, and volume doubling time of pulmonary nodules or masses. The clinical stage distribution of screen-detected cancers was compared with two independent practice-based databases consisting of unscreened LC patients.

RESULTS

The percentage of negative and indeterminate tests at baseline were 74.2% and 21.7%, respectively, whereas the prevalence of positive LDCT results was 4.1%. Overall, 76 LC patients were diagnosed throughout the screening rounds (1.8% of total participants), out of which 62 (1.5%) patients were already identified in the first screening round. The overall positive predictive value of a positive test was 58%. Most screen-detected malignancies were stage I LCs (60.7%), and only 16.4% of all cases could be classified as stage IV disease. The percentage of early-stage malignancies was significantly higher among HUNCHEST-II screen-detected individuals than among the LC patients in the National Koranyi Institute of Pulmonology's archive or the Hungarian Cancer Registry (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

HUNCHEST-II demonstrates that LDCT screening for LC facilitates early diagnosis, thus arguing in favor of introducing systematic LC screening in Hungary.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

HUNCHEST-II is the so-far largest population-based low-dose CT screening program in Hungary. A positive test's overall positive predictive value was 58%, and most screen-detected malignancies were early-stage lesions. These results pave the way for expansive systematic screening in the region.

KEY POINTS

• Conducted in 18 medical facilities, HUNCHEST-II is the so far largest population-based low-dose CT screening program in Hungary. • The vast majority of screen-detected malignancies were early-stage lung cancers, and the overall positive predictive value of a positive test was 58%. • HUNCHEST-II facilitates early diagnosis, thus arguing in favor of introducing systematic lung cancer screening in Hungary.

Circ-SATB2 (hsa_circ_0008928) and miR-150-5p are regulators of TRIM66 in the regulation of NSCLC cell growth and metastasis of NSCLC cells via the ceRNA pathway

Circular RNA (circRNA) was an important modulator and potential molecular target of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). CircSATB2 was reported to be upregulated in NSCLC. However, the role and mechanism of circSATB2 in NSCLC progression remain to be illustrated. The RNA and protein expression was detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, western blot, and immunohistochemistry assay. Cell counting kit-8, cell colony formation, and 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine assays were applied to assess cell growth. The migrated and invaded cells were examined by transwell assay. Flow cytometry was performed to measure apoptotic cells. The interaction among circSATB2, microRNA-150-5p (miR-150-5p), and tripartite motif-containing protein 66 (TRIM66) was identified by dual-luciferase reporter assay and RNA immunoprecipitation assay. An in vivo experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of circSATB2 on tumor growth. CircSATB2 expression was highly expressed in NSCLC tissues and cell lines. CircSATB2 and TRIM66 silencing both suppressed NSCLC cell growth, migration, and invasion whereas promoted NSCLC cell apoptosis. CircSATB2 acted as a molecular sponge for miR-150-5p, and miR-150-5p interacted with the 3' untranslated region (3'UTR) of TRIM66. Moreover, circSATB2 knockdown-induced effects were partly reversed by TRIM66 overexpression in NSCLC cells. Besides, cirSATB2 expression was negatively correlated with miR-150-5p level and positively correlated with TRIM66 level in NSCLC tumor tissues. CircSATB2 knockdown blocked xenograft tumor growth in vivo. In summary, this study verified that circSATB2 stimulated NSCLC cell malignant behaviors by miR-150-5p/TRIM66 pathway, providing a possible circRNA-targeted therapy for NSCLC.

Factors Associated With Receipt of Tobacco Treatment Integrated With Nurse Navigation in a Centralized Lung Cancer Screening Program at an Urban Academic Medical Center

PURPOSE

Optimal approaches for tobacco treatment counseling among individuals who currently smoke and are undergoing shared decision-making (SDM) and lung cancer screening (LCS) are unknown. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the rate of reported interest in tobacco treatment counseling and pharmacotherapy among individuals who currently smoke and are receiving integrated nurse navigation for LCS and tobacco treatment in a centralized LCS Program.

METHODS

We identified individuals undergoing SDM through our centralized LCS Program between March 2021 and March 2022. The LCS Program tobacco treatment protocol includes counseling both in-person and via telephone during SDM, LCS results review, and an optional 4-week follow-up. Sociodemographic and clinical data for currently smoking individuals participating in LCS were extracted from the LCS Registry.

RESULTS

Among 1034 individuals undergoing LCS through the centralized program, 605 were currently smoking and comprised the study cohort. Nearly half (49.8%) reported interest in tobacco treatment counseling and pharmacotherapy and received a personalized treatment plan. On multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with expressing interest in treatment included African-American/Black race, higher educational attainment, and returning visit type. Among the 301 individuals expressing interest in tobacco treatment, 35 (11.6%) had documentation of self-reported smoking cessation in the electronic health record. Successful smoking cessation for any length of time was significantly associated with receiving at least one longitudinal tobacco cessation counseling telephone call.

CONCLUSIONS

In a centralized LCS Program offering tobacco treatment integrated with screening services, race, education, and visit type were significantly associated with expressing interest in tobacco treatment counseling and pharmacotherapy, while longitudinal tobacco counseling telephone calls were associated with smoking cessation. Randomized controlled trials are needed to test whether this integrated strategy leads to LCS- and tobacco-related outcomes.

Causal effect of beta-blockers on the risk of lung cancer: a Mendelian randomization study

Background

It remains uncertain whether there is a causal association of the use of beta-blockers (BBs) on lung cancer risk. We used a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to identify the causal association of BBs and lung cancer risk.

Methods

Twenty-two BB-related single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were obtained from the UK Biobank as the instrumental variables (IVs). Genetic summary data information of lung cancer was extracted from the International Lung Cancer Consortium, with a total of 11,348 cases and 15,861 controls. We adopted the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) approach to conduct the MR analyses. Egger-intercept analysis was further performed as sensitivity analysis for pleiotropy evaluation. Additionally, we investigated whether BBs could causally affect the risk of lung cancer through their pharmacological effects.

Results

The current IVW analysis suggested a decreased lung cancer risk in BB users [odds ratio (OR) =0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.95; P<0.01]. Results of Egger-intercept analysis demonstrated that no pleiotropy was found (P=0.94), which suggested the robustness of the causality. However, there was little evidence that pharmacological effects mediate the association between BBs and lung cancer.

Conclusions

The current analysis suggested that BBs could decrease the risk of lung cancer but may be not via its pharmacological effects. Further research is in need for elucidating the underlying mechanisms.

Advancing Health Equity in Lung Cancer Screening and the Role of Humanomics

Identifying and managing lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-specific mortality, depend on multiple medical and sociodemographic factors. Humanomics is a model that acknowledges that negative societal stressors from systemic inequity affect individual health by altering pro-inflammatory gene expression. The same factors which may predispose individuals to lung cancer may also obstruct equitably prompt diagnosis and treatment. Increasing lung cancer screening access can lessen disparities in outcomes among disproportionately affected communities. Here, the authors describe several individual, provider, and health system-level obstacles to lung cancer screening and offer actionable solutions to increase access.

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.

Lung cancer screening using low-dose CT and FDG-PET in liver transplant recipients

To address the feasibility of implementing a lung cancer screening program in liver transplant recipients (LTR) targeted to detect early-stage lung cancer one hundred twenty-four LTR (89% male, 59.8+/-8.8 y old), who entered the lung cancer screening program at our hospital were reviewed. The results of the diagnostic algorithm using low-dose CT and F-18-fluorodeoxyglycose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) were analyzed. Lung cancer was detected in 12 LTR (9.7%), most of which corresponded to the non-small cell subtype. Two of the 12 lung cancers were detected in the baseline study (prevalence of 1.6%), whereas 10 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer in the follow-up (incidence of 8.1%). Considering all cancers, 10 of 12 (83.3%) were diagnosed at stage I, one cancer was diagnosed at stage IIIA, and another one at stage IV. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of F-18-fluorodeoxyglycose positron emission tomography to detect malignancy in our cohort were 81.8%,100%, 99.3%, 100%, and 99.3%, respectively. A carefully followed multidisciplinary lung cancer screening algorithm in LTR that includes F-18-fluorodeoxyglycose positron emission tomography and low-dose CT allows lung cancer to be diagnosed at an early stage while reducing unnecessary invasive procedures.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02597491.

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESEARCH QUESTION

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

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRY

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

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: What We Have Learned in Two Decades of ITALUNG and What Is Yet to Be Addressed

The ITALUNG trial started in 2004 and compared lung cancer (LC) and other-causes mortality in 55-69 years-aged smokers and ex-smokers who were randomized to four annual chest low-dose CT (LDCT) or usual care. ITALUNG showed a lower LC and cardiovascular mortality in the screened subjects after 13 years of follow-up, especially in women, and produced many ancillary studies. They included recruitment results of a population-based mimicking approach, development of software for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and lung nodules volumetry, LDCT assessment of pulmonary emphysema and coronary artery calcifications (CAC) and their relevance to long-term mortality, results of a smoking-cessation intervention, assessment of the radiations dose associated with screening LDCT, and the results of biomarkers assays. Moreover, ITALUNG data indicated that screen-detected LCs are mostly already present at baseline LDCT, can present as lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces, and can be multiple. However, several issues of LC screening are still unaddressed. They include the annual vs. biennial pace of LDCT, choice between opportunistic or population-based recruitment. and between uni or multi-centre screening, implementation of CAD-assisted reading, containment of false positive and negative LDCT results, incorporation of emphysema. and CAC quantification in models of personalized LC and mortality risk, validation of ultra-LDCT acquisitions, optimization of the smoking-cessation intervention. and prospective validation of the biomarkers.

Enhancing an enterprise data warehouse for research with data extracted using natural language processing

Objective

This study aims to develop a generalizable architecture for enhancing an enterprise data warehouse for research (EDW4R) with results from a natural language processing (NLP) model, which allows discrete data derived from clinical notes to be made broadly available for research use without need for NLP expertise. The study also quantifies the additional value that information extracted from clinical narratives brings to EDW4R.

Materials and methods

Clinical notes written during one month at an academic health center were used to evaluate the performance of an existing NLP model and to quantify its value added to the structured data. Manual review was utilized for performance analysis. The architecture for enhancing the EDW4R is described in detail to enable reproducibility.

Results

Two weeks were needed to enhance EDW4R with data from 250 million clinical notes. NLP generated 16 and 39% increase in data availability for two variables.

Discussion

Our architecture is highly generalizable to a new NLP model. The positive predictive value obtained by an independent team showed only slightly lower NLP performance than the values reported by the NLP developers. The NLP showed significant value added to data already available in structured format.

Conclusion

Given the value added by data extracted using NLP, it is important to enhance EDW4R with these data to enable research teams without NLP expertise to benefit from value added by NLP models.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019147151. Registered 23 June 2022.

Lung cancer screening

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

Factors Associated With Smoking Cessation Attempts in Lung Cancer Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality resulting from lung cancer screening (LCS) with an additive reduction from smoking abstinence. However, successful smoking cessation within LCS is variable.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What patient and treatment factors are associated with attempts to quit smoking among those screened for lung cancer?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a secondary analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network arm of the NLST, patient demographics, patient smoking behaviors, and tobacco treatment variables were stratified by patient smoking status. The Cox proportional hazards ratio was used to evaluate each variable's effect on attempting to quit smoking.

RESULTS

Seven thousand three hundred sixty-nine patients were smoking actively at enrollment in the NLST. Of the patients who reported they were smoking, 73.4% did not receive any pharmacologic tobacco treatment. More patients who attempted to quit received pharmacologic tobacco treatment than those who continued to smoke: (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], 18.0% vs 12.4% [P < .01]; bupropion, 7.9% vs 6.9% [P = .02]; both NRT and bupropion, 5.6% vs 3.9% [P < .01]). Stable users were more likely to be women (47.8% vs 43.8%; P < .01), to be African American (8.2% vs 6.3%; P = .007), to be unmarried (43.2% vs 36.9% [P < .01]), and to have less than a college education (47.7% vs 42.3%; P < .01). Patients with high dependence who received dual therapy with bupropion and NRT showed the highest likelihood of quit attempt (hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.75-2.44).

INTERPRETATION

In this analysis, only one-quarter of patients who underwent LCS and who smoked were treated with pharmacologic therapy, which is associated with increased likelihood of attempting to quit. Certain characteristics are associated with difficulty with attempting to quit smoking. Those with high nicotine dependence benefitted most from dual pharmacologic therapy.

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.

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment (ESCAPE) digitalized intervention to promote lung health in high-risk individuals who smoke

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is an effective screening test to decrease lung cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening may be a teachable moment helping people who smoke to quit, which may result in increased benefit of screening. Innovative strategies are needed to engage high-risk individuals in learning about LDCT screening. More precise methods such as polygenic risk scores quantify genetic predisposition to tobacco use, and optimize lung health interventions. We present the ESCAPE (Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment) protocol. This study will test a smoking cessation intervention using personal stories and a lung cancer screening decision-aide compared to standard care (brief advice, referral to a quit line, and a lung cancer screening decision-aide), examine the relationship between a polygenic risk score and smoking abstinence, and describe perceptions about integration of genomic information into smoking cessation treatment. A randomized controlled trial followed by a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach will compare the efficacy of the interventions. Interviews will add insight into the use of genomic information and risk perceptions to tailor smoking cessation treatment. Two-hundred and fifty individuals will be recruited from primary care, community-based organizations, mailing lists and through social media. Data will be collected at baseline, 1, 3 and 6-months. The primary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence and stage of lung cancer screening at 6-months. The results from this study will provide information to refine the ESCAPE intervention and facilitate integration of precision health into future lung health interventions. Clinical trial registration number: NCT0469129T.

Causal associations between gastroesophageal reflux disease and lung cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND

Observational epidemiological studies suggest that lung cancer risk may be raised by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); however, the causal relationship between them remains unknown. Our study performed the two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to examine the causal relationship between GERD and lung cancer.

METHODS

Instrument variables were found to be independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that were highly linked with GERD (n = 129,080). Summary data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) data were used to determine outcomes for lung cancer (n = 11,348), squamous cell lung cancer (LUSC), and lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). In this study, three MR statistical techniques (inverse variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger, and weighted median) were used to examine the potential causative relationship between GERD and the risk of lung cancer. Cochran's Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, leave-one-out analysis, and the funnel plot were all used in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The main IVW method revealed that GERD substantially increased the risk of lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 1.37; 95% CI 1.16-1.63, p = 0. 0003], which was also supported by weighted median and MR-Egger analyses. Using IVW estimate, similar causal relationships were also observed between GERD and LUSC (OR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.26-1.93, p = 5.35 × 10^-5 ) and LUAD (OR = 1.45; 95% CI 1.09-1.93, p = 0.01). Although potential heterogeneity was observed in some studies, random effect IVW was not violated by the heterogeneity, indicating that the causal effect was robust.

CONCLUSION

GERD was positively associated with the risk of lung cancer, for LUSC and LUAD. This study shed light on a new direction for prevent strategy of lung cancer and therapeutic perspectives in patients with GERD.

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

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

Early Diagnosis and Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer remains the most significant cause of cancer death, accounting for about 20% of all cancer-related mortality. A significant reason for this is delayed diagnosis, either due to lack of symptoms in early-stage disease or presentation with non-specific symptoms common with a broad range of alternative diagnoses. More is needed in terms of increasing public awareness, providing adequate healthcare professional education and implementing clinical pathways that improve the earlier diagnosis of symptomatic lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography screening of high-risk, asymptomatic populations has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, with focus now shifting towards how best to implement lung cancer screening on a wider scale in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner. For maximum benefit, efforts must be made to optimise uptake, especially among high-risk populations with significant socioeconomic deprivation, as well as successfully incorporate tobacco-dependency treatment. Quality assured programme management will be critical to minimising screening-related harms and adequately managing incidental findings. By undertaking the above, there can be optimism that lung cancer outcomes can be improved significantly in the near future.

Patient Perspectives on the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool for Lung Cancer Screening

Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.

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.

Effects of Smoking on Optic Nerve Head Microvasculature Density in Glaucoma

PRCIS

Decreased superficial whole image capillary density was observed in open angle glaucoma (OAG) patients with high smoking intensity.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of smoking on optic nerve head capillary density measured by optical coherence tomography angiography in patients with OAG.

METHODS

In this retrospective cross-sectional study, perimetric and preperimetric glaucoma patients enrolled in the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) with optical coherence tomography angiography follow-up were included. Univariable and multivariable linear mixed analysis were performed to determine the effects of different variables on the superficial whole image capillary density.

RESULTS

A total of 432 eyes of 271 glaucoma patients comprising 63 preperimetric (106 eyes) and 208 perimetric OAG (326 eyes) were included. A history of tobacco consumption was reported in 105 (38.8%). Among smokers, mean (95% confidence interval) smoking intensity was 12.8 (10.2, 15.5) pack-years. After adjusting for age, glaucoma severity and other confounders, each 10 pack-year increase in smoking intensity (95% confidence interval) was associated with -0.54 (-1.06, -0.02) % lower whole image capillary density ( P =0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking intensity is associated with reduced optic nerve vessel density in glaucoma.

Study protocol of a multiphase optimization strategy trial (MOST) for delivery of smoking cessation treatment in lung cancer screening settings

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement that the integration of cessation services in lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential for achieving the full benefits of LCS with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). There is a formidable knowledge gap about how to best design feasible, effective, and scalable cessation services in LCS facilities. A collective of NCI-funded clinical trials addressing this gap is the Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration.

METHODS

The Cessation and Screening to Save Lives (CASTL) trial seeks to advance knowledge about the reach, effectiveness, and implementation of tobacco treatment in lung cancer screening. We describe the rationale, design, evaluation plan, and interventions tested in this multiphase optimization strategy trial (MOST). A total of 1152 screening-eligible current smokers are being recruited from 18 LCS sites (n = 64/site) in both academic and community settings across the USA. Participants receive enhanced standard care (cessation advice and referral to the national Quitline) and are randomized to receive additional tobacco treatment components (motivational counseling, nicotine replacement patches/lozenges, message framing). The primary outcome is biochemically validated, abstinence at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes are self-reported smoking abstinence, quit attempts, and smoking reduction at 3 and 6 months. Guided by the Implementation Outcomes Framework (IOF), our evaluation includes measurement of implementation processes (reach, fidelity, acceptability, appropriateness, sustainability, and cost).

CONCLUSION

We will identify effective treatment components for delivery by LCS sites. The findings will guide the assembly of an optimized smoking cessation package that achieves superior cessation outcomes. Future trials can examine the strategies for wider implementation of tobacco treatment in LDCT-LCS sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03315910.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Smoking cessation services and shared decision-making practices among lung cancer screening facilities: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how screening facilities are meeting the requirements for the reimbursement of lung cancer screening from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including 1) the collection and submission of data to the CMS-approved registry (American College of Radiology [ACR] Lung Cancer Screening Registry), 2) the verification of a counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit having occurred as part of the written order for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, and 3) the offering of smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

The authors identified facilities in a southwestern state that were listed by either the ACR Lung Cancer Screening Registry or the GO2 Foundation Centers of Excellence. To select facilities, they used 2 purposive sampling approaches: maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling. They surveyed facilities from February to November 2019.

RESULTS

There were 87 facilities contacted, and a total of 63 facilities representing 32 counties across Texas completed the survey. Nearly all facilities used Lung-RADS to classify nodules (92%; n = 58) and submitted data to a CMS-approved registry (92%; n = 57). Most facilities verified that the counseling and SDM visit had occurred (86%; n = 54). Although slightly more than half of the facilities reported always providing self-help cessation materials (68%; n = 42), similar or higher proportions of facilities reported that they never referred smokers to onsite cessation services (68%; n = 42) or quitlines (77%; n = 47), provided cessation counseling (81%; n = 50), or recommended medications (85%; n = 52).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, screening facilities are meeting CMS requirements for screening, but they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self-help materials.

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.

Training Tobacco Treatment Specialists through Virtual Asynchronous Learning

Tobacco dependence is a prevalent, chronic, and complex addiction that often leads to long-term disease and death. However, few healthcare providers are sufficiently trained and feel comfortable in delivering tobacco dependence treatment. The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of an accredited online Tobacco Treatment Specialist (TTS) training program that uses a novel, asynchronous approach. We compared the characteristics of participants who completed the program to those who did not complete the program. Changes in knowledge and attitudes in providing tobacco dependence treatment were measured, and satisfaction with the program and intent to pursue national certification were assessed. Participants who were more likely to complete the program were those who discussed quitting less frequently with patients prior to course enrollment. These participants had a significant increase in knowledge and high satisfaction with the course. Approximately half of participants who completed the program indicated that they would pursue obtaining a national certificate in tobacco dependence treatment in the next 2 years.

Improved motivation and readiness to quit shortly after lung cancer screening: Evidence for a teachable moment

BACKGROUND

For patients at high risk for lung cancer, screening using low-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening [LCS]) is recommended. The purpose of this study was to examine whether screening may serve as a teachable moment for smoking-related outcomes.

METHODS

In a smoking-cessation trial, participants (N = 843) completed 2 phone interviews before randomization: before LCS (T0) and after LCS (T1). By using logistic and linear regression, the authors examined teachable moment variables (perceived risk, lung cancer worry) and outcomes (readiness, motivation, and cigarettes per day [CPD]).

RESULTS

Participants were a mean ± SD age of 63.7 ± 5.9 years, had 47.8 ± 7.1 pack-years of smoking, 35.2% had a high school diploma or General Educational Development (high school equivalency) degree or less, and 42.3% were undergoing their first scan. Between T0 and T1, 25.7% of participants increased readiness to quit, 9.6% decreased readiness, and 64.7% reported no change (P < .001). Motivation to quit increased (P < .05) and CPD decreased between assessments (P < .001), but only 1.3% self-reported quitting. Compared with individuals who reported no lung cancer worry/little worry, extreme worry was associated with readiness to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0) and with higher motivation (b = 0.83; P < .001) at T1. Individuals undergoing a baseline (vs annual) scan were more ready to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

During the brief window between registering for LCS and receiving the results, the authors observed that very few participants quit smoking, but a significant proportion improved on readiness and motivation to quit, particularly among individuals who were undergoing their first scan and those who were extremely worried about lung cancer. These results indicate that providing evidence-based tobacco treatment can build upon this teachable moment.

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.

Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021.

Development and psychometric testing of the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening (SRQ-LCS)

BACKGROUND

Research implicates psychological factors in low uptake of lung cancer screening. We developed and psychometrically tested a standardised measure of these psychological determinants in preparation for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of screening uptake.

METHODS

Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation of Health and Illness provided the theoretical framework to generate the initial item pool. Items were refined during expert review and cognitive interviews which tested for face validity, redundancy, acceptability and comprehensibility. An online survey piloted the refined pool with 1500 current and former (quit ≤ 15 years) smokers aged 55-80. The response distributions, internal reliability and factor structure determined the final retained constructs. Regression analyses examined these constructs' associations with screening intention, smoking status and demographics.

RESULTS

The final measure included seven factor-derived subscales (consequences, personal control, treatment control, illness coherence, emotional representation, behavioural response and appraisal, risk perception) with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.59 to 0.91 and four single-item questions (response efficacy for smoking cessation, treatment intention, perceived stigma and lung cancer survival). Most constructs were associated with smoking status and screening intention (p's < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Self-Regulatory Questionnaire for Lung Cancer Screening (SRQ-LCS) is an acceptable, reliable and valid measure for investigating the psychological determinants of screening uptake.

OUP accepted manuscript

Objective

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

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

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening recommendations expanding its eligibility. As more smokers become eligible, cessation interventions at the point of screening could enhance the benefits. Here, we evaluate the effects of joint screening and cessation interventions under the new recommendations.

METHODS

A validated lung cancer natural history model was used to estimate lifetime number of low-dose computed tomography screens, percentage ever screened, lung cancer deaths, lung cancer deaths averted, and life-years gained for the 1960 U.S. birth cohort aged 45 to 90 years (4.5 million individuals). Screening occurred according to the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations with varying uptake (0%, 30%, 100%), with or without a cessation intervention at the point of screening with varying effectiveness (15%, 100%).

RESULTS

Screening 30% of the eligible population according to the 2021 criteria with no cessation intervention (USPSTF 2021, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) was estimated to result in 6845 lung cancer deaths averted and 103,725 life-years gained. These represent 28% and 34% increases, respectively, relative to screening according to the 2013 guidelines (USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention). Adding a cessation intervention at the time of the first screen with 15% effectiveness (USPSTF 2021, 30% uptake, with cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness) was estimated to result in 2422 additional lung cancer deaths averted (9267 total, ∼73% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 322,785 life-years gained (∼318% increase). Screening 100% of the eligible according to the 2021 guidelines with no cessation intervention (USPSTF 2021, 100% uptake, without cessation intervention) was estimated to result in 23,444 lung cancer deaths averted (∼337% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 354,330 life-years gained (∼359% increase). Adding a cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness (USPSTF 2021, 100% uptake, with cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness) would result in 31,998 lung cancer deaths averted (∼497% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 1,086,840 life-years gained (∼1309% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Joint screening and cessation interventions would result in considerable lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained. Adding a one-time cessation intervention of modest effectiveness (15%) results in comparable life-years gained as increasing screening uptake from 30% to 100% because while cessation decreases mortality from many causes, screening only reduces lung cancer mortality. This simulation indicates that incorporating cessation programs into screening practice should be a priority as it can maximize overall benefits.