Incorporating a Smoking Cessation Intervention into Lung Cancer Screening Programs: Preliminary Studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hagerman CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5880211 | biostudies-other | 2015 Nov-Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Incorporating a Smoking Cessation Intervention into Lung Cancer Screening Programs: Preliminary Studies.
Hagerman Charlotte J CJ Tomko Catherine A CA Stanton Cassandra A CA Kramer Jenna A JA Abrams David B DB Anderson Eric D ED Taylor Kathryn L KL
Journal of psychosocial oncology 20151101 6
Two preliminary studies assessed whether telephone counseling (TC) is a feasible smoking cessation intervention following lung cancer screening. Seven older smokers undergoing lung cancer screening (pack years = 61.5) completed three TC sessions, which incorporated the screening result as motivation to quit. Participation (87.5%) and retention (85.7%) rates were good, and four smokers quit smoking (three of whom received abnormal results). We conducted four focus groups with 16 current and forme ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Incorporating effective smoking cessation interventions into lung cancer screening (LCS) programs will be essential to realizing the full benefit of screening. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to determine the feasibility and efficacy of a telephone-counseling (TC) smoking cessation intervention vs. usual care (UC) in the LCS setting. In collaboration with 3 geographically diverse LCS programs, we enrolled current smokers (61.5% participation rate) who were: registered to undergo LCS, 50-77 years old, and had a 20+ pack-year smoking history. Eligibility was not based on readiness to quit. Participants completed pre-LCS (T0) and post-LCS (T1) telephone assessments, were randomized to TC (N=46) vs. UC (N=46), and completed a final 3-month telephone assessment (T2). Both study arms received a list of evidence-based cessation resources. TC participants also received up to 6 brief counseling calls with a trained cessation counselor. Counseling calls incorporated motivational interviewing and utilized the screening result as a motivator for quitting. The outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence cessation at 3-months post-randomization. Participants (56.5% female) were 60.2 (SD=5.4) years old and reported 47.1 (SD=22.2) pack years; 30% were ready to stop smoking in the next 30 days. TC participants completed an average of 4.4 (SD=2.3) sessions. Using intent-to-treat analyses, biochemically verified quit rates were 17.4% (TC) vs. 4.3% (UC), p<.05. This study provides preliminary evidence that telephone-based cessation counseling is feasible and efficacious in the LCS setting. As millions of current smokers are now eligible for lung cancer screening, this setting represents an important opportunity to exert a large public health impact on cessation among smokers who are at very high risk for multiple tobacco-related diseases. If this evidence-based, brief, and scalable intervention is replicated, TC could help to improve the overall cost-effectiveness of LCS.NCT02267096, https://clinicaltrials.gov.
| S-EPMC5476481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A 2011 report from the National Lung Screening Trial indicates that three annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings for lung cancer reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% compared to chest X-ray among older individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Discussion has shifted from clinical proof to financial feasibility. The goal of this study was to determine whether LDCT screening for lung cancer in a commercially-insured population (aged 50-64) at high risk for lung cancer is cost-effective and to quantify the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions in a lung cancer screening program. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The current study builds upon a previous simulation model to estimate the cost-utility of annual, repeated LDCT screenings over 15 years in a high risk hypothetical cohort of 18 million adults between age 50 and 64 with 30+ pack-years of smoking history. In the base case, the lung cancer screening intervention cost $27.8 billion over 15 years and yielded 985,284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for a cost-utility ratio of $28,240 per QALY gained. Adding smoking cessation to these annual screenings resulted in increases in both the costs and QALYs saved, reflected in cost-utility ratios ranging from $16,198 per QALY gained to $23,185 per QALY gained. Annual LDCT lung cancer screening in this high risk population remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this study indicate that repeat annual lung cancer screening in a high risk cohort of adults aged 50-64 is highly cost-effective. Offering smoking cessation interventions with the annual screening program improved the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening between 20% and 45%. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this study were in line with other accepted cancer screening interventions and support inclusion of annual LDCT screening for lung cancer in a high risk population in clinical recommendations.
| S-EPMC3737088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, yet few people who are eligible for LCS get screened. In the present study, we studied the feasibility of tobacco cessation counselors to inform about LCS during tobacco cessation group counseling. METHODS:Four tobacco cessation counselors at two different facilities offering group tobacco cessation counseling were trained to administer an educational intervention about LCS. The intervention was administered to 25 participants during May 2019 who completed surveys that assessed how much the information provided helped with understanding various aspects of lung cancer screening including benefits, risks, eligibility criteria, and insurance coverage. The intervention also provided information on how to learn more about LCS and assessed the acceptability of the information. RESULTS:The median score for understanding of all components of the intervention was 5 ('completely understand'). Most participants (92%) felt that the information provided about LCS was the right amount. Most participants (72%) were aged 55-80 years, the age range for LCS eligibility. Four participants (16%) reported undergoing LCS in the past. When we reanalyzed the subset of participants who reported no prior LCS, the results of surveys were similar. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that it is feasible to train tobacco cessation counselors to educate smokers, attending group tobacco cessation counseling classes, also about LCS. The education provided in this study was both understood and well received by the large majority of smokers surveyed. Further study is needed to understand the effect of LCS education on utilization of LDCT among smokers enrolled in tobacco cessation counseling.
| S-EPMC7291913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RATIONALE:Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES:To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting. METHODS:The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned. RESULTS:There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings. CONCLUSIONS:This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.
| S-EPMC6072613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quitting smoking after a diagnosis of cancer results in greater response to treatment and decreased risk of disease recurrence and second primary cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of two smoking cessation approaches: the current basic smoking cessation program consisting of screening for tobacco use, advice, and referral; and a best practice smoking cessation program that includes the current basic program with the addition of pharmacological therapy, counseling, and follow-up. A Markov model was constructed that followed 65-year-old smokers with cancer over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality estimates were obtained from the published literature. Costs were obtained from standard costing sources in Ontario and reports. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter uncertainties. For smokers with cancer, the best practice smoking cessation program was more effective and more costly than the basic smoking cessation program. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the best practice smoking cessation program compared to the basic smoking cessation program was $3367 per QALY gained and $5050 per LY gained for males, and $2050 per QALY gained and $4100 per LY gained for females. Results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of mortality for former and current smokers, the probability of quitting smoking through participation in the program and smoking-attributable costs. The study results suggested that a best practice smoking cessation program could be a cost-effective option. These findings can support and guide implementation of smoking cessation programs.
| S-EPMC6144163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify promising intervention components intended to help smokers to attain and maintain abstinence in their quit smoking attempts.A fully crossed, six-factor randomized fractional factorial experiment.Eleven primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin, USA.A total of 637 adult smokers (55% women, 88% white) motivated to quit smoking who visited primary care clinics.Six intervention components designed to prepare smokers to quit, and achieve and maintain abstinence (i.e. for the preparation, cessation and maintenance phases of smoking treatment): (1) preparation nicotine patch versus none; (2) preparation nicotine gum versus none; (3) preparation counseling versus none; (4) intensive cessation in-person counseling versus minimal; (5) intensive cessation telephone counseling versus minimal; and (6) 16 versus 8?weeks of combination nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patch ?+? nicotine gum).Seven-day self-reported point-prevalence abstinence at 16?weeks.Preparation counseling significantly improved week 16 abstinence rates (P = .04), while both forms of preparation nicotine replacement therapy interacted synergistically with intensive cessation in-person counseling (P?<?0.05). Conversely, intensive cessation phone counseling and intensive cessation in-person counseling interacted antagonistically (P?<?0.05)-these components produced higher abstinence rates by themselves than in combination.Preparation counseling and the combination of intensive cessation in-person counseling with preparation nicotine gum or patch are promising intervention components for smoking and should be evaluated as an integrated treatment package.
| S-EPMC4699315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes.Design, setting, and participantsA matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening.ResultsDelivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79).Conclusions and relevanceAssist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.
| S-EPMC5089370 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7297104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe describe primary care providers' current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS).MethodsFamily, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns.ResultsOf 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow-ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision-making about LCS, although only about one-third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04).ConclusionsWithin the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow-up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision-making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.
| S-EPMC7926026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches.MethodsWe conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsCompared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence.ConclusionAll smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.
| S-EPMC8502465 | biostudies-literature