A Randomized Trial of Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting. (12th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taylor, Kathryn L; Williams, Randi M; Li, Tengfei; Luta, George; Smith, Laney; Davis, Kimberly M; Stanton, Cassandra A; Niaura, Raymond; Abrams, David; Lobo, Tania; Mandelblatt, Jeanne; Jayasekera, Jinani; Meza, Rafael; Jeon, Jihyoun; Cao, Pianpian; Anderson, Eric D
• Is Part Of: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Volume 114:Number 10(2022)
• Page Start: 1410
• Page End: 1419
• Publication Date: 2022-07-12
• Subjects: Cancer -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Research -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac127
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0027-8874

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Lung cancer mortality is reduced via low-dose computed tomography 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 National Cancer Institute's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination collaboration. Methods: Eligible patients (n = 818) aged 50-80 years were randomly assigned (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 at 3, 6, and 12 months post random assignment. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the effects of study arm. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Participants reported 48.0 (SD = 17.2) pack-years, and 51.6% were not ready to quit in less than 30 days. Self-reported 3-month quit rates were statistically significantly higher in the intensive vs minimal arm (14.3% vs 7.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26 to 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 to 5.08). Compared with the minimal arm, the intensive arm was more effective among those with greater nicotine dependence (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.55 to 7.76), normal screening results (OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.32 to 5.03), high engagement in counseling (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.50 to 6.14), and patch use (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.39 to 5.68). Abstinence rates did not differ statistically significantly between arms at 6 months (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.68 to 2.11) or 12 months (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.82 to 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.