Potential Impact of Cessation Interventions at the Point of Lung Cancer Screening on Lung Cancer and Overall Mortality in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for adults aged 55 to 80 years with a greater than or equal to 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. The 50% who are current smokers should be offered cessation interventions, but information about the impact of adding cessation to screening is limited. METHODS: We used an established lung cancer simulation model to compare the effects on mortality of a hypothetical one-time cessation intervention and annual screening versus annual screening only among screen-eligible individuals born in 1950 or 1960. Model inputs were derived from national data and included smoking history, probability of quitting with and without intervention, lung cancer risk and treatment effectiveness, and competing tobacco-related mortality. We tested the sensitivity of results under different assumptions about screening use and cessation efficacy. RESULTS: Smoking cessation reduces lung cancer mortality and delays overall deaths versus screening only across all assumptions. For example, if screening was used by 30% of screen-eligible individuals born in 1950, adding an intervention with a 10% quit probability reduces lung cancer deaths by 14% and increases life years gained by 81% compared with screening alone. The magnitude of cessation benefits varied under screening uptake rates, cessation effectiveness, and birth cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation interventions have the potential to greatly enhance the impact of lung cancer screening programs. Evaluation of specific interventions, including costs and feasibility of implementation and dissemination, is needed to determine the best possible strategies and realize the full promise of lung cancer screening.

Simulation of Chemotherapy Effects in Older Breast Cancer Patients With High Recurrence Scores.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic expression profile data are used to guide chemotherapy choice, but there are gaps in evidence for women aged 65 years and older. We estimate chemotherapy effects by age and comorbidity level among women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancers and Oncotype DX scores of 26 or higher. METHODS: A discrete-time stochastic state transition simulation model synthesized data from population studies and clinical trials to estimate outcomes over a 25-year horizon for subgroups based on age (65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and 80-89 years) and comorbidity levels (no or low, moderate, severe). Outcomes were discounted at 3%, and included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, and breast cancer and other-cause mortality with chemoendocrine vs endocrine therapy. Sensitivity analysis tested the effect of varying uncertain parameters. RESULTS: Women aged 65-69 years with no or low comorbidity gained 0.16 QALYs with chemo-endocrine and reduced breast cancer mortality from 34.8% to 29.7%, for an absolute difference of 5.1%; this benefit was associated with a 12.8% rate of grade 3-4 toxicity. Women aged 65-69 years with no or low or moderate comorbidity levels, and women aged 70-74 years with no or low comorbidity had small chemotherapy benefits. All women aged 75 years and older experienced net losses in QALYs with chemo-endocrine therapy. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Chemotherapy had greater benefits as treatment effectiveness increased, but toxicity reduced the QALYs gained. CONCLUSION: Among women aged 65-89 years whose tumors indicate a high recurrence risk, only those aged 65-74 years with no or low or moderate comorbidity have small benefits from adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy. Genomic expression profile testing (and chemotherapy use) should be reserved for women aged younger than 75 years without severe comorbidity.

Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. RESULTS: Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories. CONCLUSIONS: Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.