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.

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.

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.

Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot.

Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a "lung health check" (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.

Baseline Results of the West London lung cancer screening pilot study - Impact of mobile scanners and dual risk model utilisation.

OBJECTIVES: The West London lung screening pilot aimed to identify early-stage lung cancer by targeting low-dose CT (LDCT) to high risk participants. Successful implementation of screening requires maximising participant uptake and identifying those at highest risk. As well as reporting pre-specified baseline screening metrics, additional objectives were to 1) compare participant uptake between a mobile and hospital-based CT scanner and 2) evaluate the impact on cancer detection using two lung cancer risk models. METHODS: From primary care records, ever-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a lung health check at a hospital or mobile site. Participants with PLCOM2012 6-yr risk ≥1.51 % and/or LLPv2 5-yr risk ≥2.0 % were offered a LDCT. Lung cancer detection rate, stage, and recall rates are reported. Participant uptake was compared at both sites (chi-squared test). LDCT eligibility and cancer detection rate were compared between those recruited under each risk model. RESULTS: Of 8366 potential participants invited, 1047/5135 (20.4 %) invitees responded to an invitation to the hospital site, and 702/3231 (21.7 %) to the mobile site (p = 0.14). The median distance travelled to the hospital site was less than to the mobile site (3.3 km vs 6.4 km, p < 0.01). Of 1159 participants eligible for a scan, 451/1159 (38.9 %) had a LLPv2 ≥2.0 % only, 71/1159 (6.1 %) had a PLCOM2012 ≥1.5 % only; 637/1159 (55.0 %) met both risk thresholds. Recall rate was 15.9 %. Lung cancer was detected in 29/1145 (2.5 %) participants scanned (stage 1, 58.6 %); 5/29 participants with lung cancer did not meet a PLCOM2012 threshold of ≥1.51 %; all had a LLPv2 ≥2.0 %. CONCLUSION: Targeted screening is effective in detecting early-stage lung cancer. Similar levels of participant uptake at a mobile and fixed site scanner were demonstrated, indicating that uptake was driven by factors in addition to scanner location. The LLPv2 model was more permissive; recruitment with PLCOM2012 alone would have missed several cancers.