Stakeholder Research Priorities for Smoking Cessation Interventions within Lung Cancer Screening Programs. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Uptake and 4-week outcomes of an 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy in a London-based lung cancer screening setting

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening (LCS) enables the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to a population experiencing long-term tobacco dependence, but the optimal delivery method remains unclear. Here, we report uptake and short-term outcomes of an 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy in an LCS cohort.

METHODS

Individuals currently smoking tobacco who attended a face-to-face lung health check in the SUMMIT study (NCT03934866) were offered very brief advice on smoking cessation and where possible, an 'opt-out' referral to their local stop smoking service (SSS). Aggregate data on referral outcomes were obtained from each SSS individually.

RESULTS

33.7% (n=2090/6203) of individuals currently smoking tobacco consented to a practitioner-made 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral. 42.7% (n=893/2090) of these individuals resided in boroughs where SSS were not present or required self-referral. Males (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.16), younger individuals (55-59: aOR 1.70, 60-64: aOR 1.71 and 65-69: aOR 1.78) and those of ethnic minority backgrounds (Asian: aOR 1.31, Black: aOR 1.71 and Mixed: aOR 1.72) were more likely to consent, while individuals from the most deprived socioeconomic quintile were less likely to do so (aOR 0.65).High level of motivation to quit within a defined time frame (aOR 1.92), previous quit attempts in the past 12 months (1-4: aOR 1.65 and ≥5: aOR 1.54) and time to first cigarette of ≤60 min (<5: aOR 2.07, 6-30: aOR 1.55 and 31-60: aOR 1.56) were measures of tobacco dependence associated with a higher likelihood of providing consent.Outcomes were available for 742 referrals. An appointment with the service was accepted by 47.3% (n=351/742) of individuals, following which 65.5% (n=230/351) set a quit date. The 4-week quit rate among those setting a quit date and all individuals referred was 57.4% (n=132/230) and 17.8% (n=132/742), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A proactive, 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy for individuals currently smoking tobacco who interact with an LCS programme may be beneficial.

The pros and cons of lung cancer screening

Several trials have shown that low-dose computed tomography-based lung cancer screening (LCS) allows a substantial reduction in lung cancer-related mortality, carrying the potential for other clinical benefits. There are, however, some uncertainties to be clarified and several aspects to be implemented to optimize advantages and minimize the potential harms of LCS. This review summarizes current evidence on LCS, discussing some of the well-established and potential benefits, including lung cancer (LC)-related mortality reduction and opportunity for smoking cessation interventions, as well as the disadvantages of LCS, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Different perspectives are provided on LCS based on the updated literature. KEY POINTS: Lung cancer is a leading cancer-related cause of death and screening should reduce associated mortality. This review summarizes current evidence related to LCS. Several aspects need to be implemented to optimize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks of LCS.

Immediate smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening: long-term outcomes from two randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Immediate smoking cessation interventions delivered alongside targeted lung health checks (TLHCs) to screen for lung cancer increase self-reported abstinence at 3 months. The impact on longer term, objectively confirmed quit rates remains to be established.

METHODS

We followed up participants from two clinical trials in people aged 55-75 years who smoked and took part in a TLHC. These randomised participants in the TLHC by day of attendance to either usual care (UC) (signposting to smoking cessation services) or an offer of immediate smoking cessation support including pharmacotherapy. In the QuLIT1 trial, this was delivered face to face and in QuLIT2, it was delivered remotely. Follow-up was conducted 12 months after the TLHC by telephone interview with subsequent biochemical verification of smoking cessation using exhaled CO.

RESULTS

430 people were enrolled initially (115 in QuLIT1 and 315 in QuLIT2), with 4 deaths before 12 months leaving 426 (62.1±5.27 years old and 48% women) participants for analysis. At 12 months, those randomised to attend on smoking cessation support intervention days had higher quit rates compared with UC adjusted for age, gender, deprivation, and which trial they had been in; self-reported 7-day point prevalence (20.0% vs 12.8%; adjusted OR (AOR)=1.78; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.89) and CO-verified quits (12.1% vs 4.7%; AOR=2.97; 95% CI 1.38 to 6.90). Those in the intervention arm were also more likely to report having made a quit attempt (30.2% vs UC 18.5%; AOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.15).

CONCLUSION

Providing immediate smoking cessation support alongside TLHC increases long term, biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12455871.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report - Executive Summary

BACKGROUND

Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, as well as increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

METHODS

Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and un-graded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in 7 graded recommendations and 9 ungraded consensus statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, can impact this balance.

Current Activities Centered on Healthy Living and Recommendations for the Future: A Position Statement from the HL-PIVOT Network

We continue to increase our cognizance and recognition of the importance of healthy living (HL) behaviors and HL medicine (HLM) to prevent and treat chronic disease. The continually unfolding events precipitated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have further highlighted the importance of HL behaviors, as indicated by the characteristics of those who have been hospitalized and died from this viral infection. There has already been recognition that leading a healthy lifestyle, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, may have a substantial protective effect in those who become infected with the virus. Now more than ever, HL behaviors and HLM are essential and must be promoted with a renewed vigor across the globe. In response to the rapidly evolving world since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the clear need to change lifestyle behaviors to promote human resilience and quality of life, the HL for Pandemic Event Protection (HL-PIVOT) network was established. The 4 major areas of focus for the network are: (1) knowledge discovery and dissemination; (2) education; (3) policy; (4) implementation. This HL-PIVOT network position statement provides a current synopsis of the major focus areas of the network, including leading research in the field of HL behaviors and HLM, examples of best practices in education, policy, and implementation, and recommendations for the future.

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

OBJECTIVE

To inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Comparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years.

EXPOSURES

Screening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms).

RESULTS

Efficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Microsimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.

Primary and Secondary Prevention of Lung Cancer: Tobacco Treatment

Tobacco dependence is the most consequential target to reduce the burden of lung cancer worldwide. Quitting after a cancer diagnosis can improve cancer prognosis, overall health, and quality of life. Several oncology professional organizations have issued guidelines stressing the importance of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. Providing tobacco treatment in the context of lung cancer screening is another opportunity to further reduce death from lung cancer. In this review, the authors describe the current state of tobacco dependence treatment focusing on new paradigms and approaches and their particular relevance for persons at risk or on treatment for lung cancer.

[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.

Behavioral Risk Factors: A Guide for Oncology Nurses Counseling Patients

BACKGROUND

Although many genetic and environmental causes of cancer are uncontrollable, individuals can choose behaviors that significantly increase or reduce their risk for cancer.

OBJECTIVES

This article discusses known cancer-protective behaviors, including exercising regularly, maintaining a healthy weight, vaccinating against cancer-associated viruses, and minimizing exposure to tobacco products, alcohol, processed meats, and ultraviolet light.

METHODS

The author performed a review of guidelines and techniques for counseling patients about risky behaviors, with an emphasis on patients with cancer.

FINDINGS

Much remains to be learned about the most effective clinical interventions for encouraging patients to adopt healthy behaviors, but oncology nurses should become familiar with the fundamental principles of counseling patients about health-promoting behaviors.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Patient-Physician Discussions on Lung Cancer Screening: A Missed Teachable Moment to Promote Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about whether patients and physicians perceive lung cancer screening (LCS) as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation or the degree to which physicians in "real world" settings link LCS discussions with smoking cessation counseling. We sought to characterize patient and physician perspectives of discussions about smoking cessation during LCS.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study (interviews and focus groups) with 21 physicians and 28 smokers screened in four diverse hospitals. Transcripts were analyzed for characteristics of communication about smoking cessation and LCS, the perceived effect on motivation to quit smoking, the degree to which physicians leverage LCS as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, and suggestions to improve patient-physician communication about smoking cessation in the context of LCS.

RESULTS

Patients reported that LCS made them more cognizant of the health consequences of smoking, priming them for a teachable moment. While physicians and patients both acknowledged that smoking cessation counseling was frequent, they described little connection between their discussions regarding LCS and smoking cessation counseling. Physicians identified several barriers to integrating discussions on smoking cessation and LCS. They volunteered communication strategies by which LCS could be leveraged to promote smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

LCS highlights the harms of smoking to patients who are chronic, heavy smokers and thus may serve as a teachable moment for promoting smoking cessation. However, this opportunity is typically missed in clinical practice.

IMPLICATIONS

LCS highlights the harms of smoking to heavily addicted smokers. Yet both physicians and patients reported little connection between LCS and tobacco treatment discussions due to multiple barriers. On-site tobacco treatment programs and post-screening messaging tailored to the LCS results are needed to maximize the health outcomes of LCS, including smoking quit rates and longer-term smoking-related morbidity and mortality.

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.

Treatment of tobacco dependence: current state of the art

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' requirement to integrate tobacco treatment with lung cancer screening (LCS) has served as a catalyst for motivating pulmonary medicine clinicians to improve upon their ability to effectively treat tobacco dependence. To do so, clinicians need to be well versed in the behavioral and pharmacologic tools that promote smoking cessation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current review outlines current strategies for treating tobacco dependence, focusing on the important interplay between counseling and pharmacotherapy. Studies that have been found to be particularly effective in patients with smoking-related lung disease and in the LCS setting are reviewed. New therapies that are in the pipeline, as well as novel strategies aimed at improving both adoption and effectiveness of existing therapies, are discussed.

SUMMARY

Treating tobacco dependence improves mortality and quality of life far more than the limited therapies available to treat smoking-related lung disease. Novel strategies to making tobacco treatment services more widely available, particularly to vulnerable patient populations, are needed to further decrease smoking-related morbidity and mortality. The Affordable Care Act's greater focus on prevention represents a moment of opportunity for healthcare providers and systems to engage in these efforts.

Combining smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening: A systematic review

Providing smoking cessation treatment with annual low dose CT (LDCT) screening offers an opportunity to reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the optimal approach for delivering cessation interventions in the LDCT screening context is unknown. We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a control group testing a smoking cessation intervention among adults undergoing LDCT screening through May 1, 2018 using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers independently reviewed each study to assess eligibility and extracted information using pre-specified protocols for included studies. Given significant differences in the interventions in each study, meta-analyses for the included studies could not be performed. Of 2513 identified studies, 9 met inclusion criteria. Five of the included studies were randomized controlled trials while 4 were observational studies with a control group. Studies were of varying quality, but overall were of poor to fair quality with significant potential for bias and limited generalizability. Based on the available studies, there was insufficient data to suggest a particular approach to smoking cessation counseling in the LDCT screening setting. While no studies compared combined pharmacotherapy and counseling to counseling alone or compared the various pharmacologic agents, we identified several studies underway investigating new approaches during LDCT screening. The optimal strategy for smoking cessation in patients undergoing LDCT screening remains unclear. Future studies should focus on evaluating effectiveness and implementation of combined counseling and pharmacotherapy to optimize smoking cessation during LDCT screening.

Smoking and Lung Cancer Mortality in the United States From 2015 to 2065: A Comparative Modeling Approach

BACKGROUND

Tobacco control efforts implemented in the United States since the 1960s have led to considerable reductions in smoking and smoking-related diseases, including lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To project reductions in tobacco use and lung cancer mortality from 2015 to 2065 due to existing tobacco control efforts.

DESIGN

Comparative modeling approach using 4 simulation models of the natural history of lung cancer that explicitly relate temporal smoking patterns to lung cancer rates.

SETTING

U.S. population, 1964 to 2065.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 30 to 84 years.

MEASUREMENTS

Models were developed using U.S. data on smoking (1964 to 2015) and lung cancer mortality (1969 to 2010). Each model projected lung cancer mortality by smoking status under the assumption that current decreases in smoking would continue into the future (status quo trends). Sensitivity analyses examined optimistic and pessimistic scenarios.

RESULTS

Under the assumption of continued decreases in smoking, age-adjusted lung cancer mortality was projected to decrease by 79% between 2015 and 2065. Concomitantly, and despite the expected growth, aging, and longer life expectancy of the U.S. population, the annual number of lung cancer deaths was projected to decrease from 135 000 to 50 000 (63% reduction). However, 4.4 million deaths from lung cancer are still projected to occur in the United States from 2015 to 2065, with about 20 million adults aged 30 to 84 years continuing to smoke in 2065.

LIMITATION

Projections assumed no changes to tobacco control efforts in the future and did not explicitly consider the potential effect of lung cancer screening.

CONCLUSION

Tobacco control efforts implemented since the 1960s will continue to reduce lung cancer rates well into the next half-century. Additional prevention and cessation efforts will be required to sustain and expand these gains to further reduce the lung cancer burden in the United States.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening

Each year, the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of its guidelines for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates from the National Health Interview Survey, and select issues related to cancer screening. In this 2018 update, we also summarize the new American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline and include a clarification in the language of the 2013 lung cancer screening guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:297-316. © 2018 American Cancer Society.