Study protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0].

BACKGROUND: Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

Detection of early lung cancer among military personnel (DECAMP) consortium: study protocols.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death due in large part to our inability to diagnose it at an early and potentially curable stage. Screening for lung cancer via low dose computed tomographic (LDCT) imaging has been demonstrated to improve mortality but also results in a high rate of false positive tests. The identification and application of non-invasive molecular biomarkers that improve the performance of CT imaging for the detection of lung cancer in high risk individuals would aid in clinical decision-making, eliminate the need for unnecessary LDCT follow-up, and further refine the screening criteria for an already large high-risk population. METHODS: The Detection of Early Lung Cancer Among Military Personnel (DECAMP) consortium is conducting two multicenter prospective studies with the goals of developing an integrated panel of both airway and blood-based molecular biomarkers that discriminate benign and malignant indeterminate nodules detected on CT scan as well as predict the future development of lung cancer in high-risk individuals. To achieve these goals, DECAMP is compiling an extensive array of biospecimens including nasal brushings, serum, plasma and intrathoracic airway samples (bronchial brushings and bronchial biopsies) from normal-appearing airway epithelium. DISCUSSION: This bank of samples is the foundation for multiple DECAMP efforts focused on the identification of those at greatest risk of developing lung cancer as well as the discrimination of benign and malignant pulmonary nodules. The clinical, imaging and biospecimen repositories will serve as a resource for the biomedical community and their investigation of the molecular basis of chronic respiratory disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered as NCT01785342 - DECAMP-1: Diagnosis and Surveillance of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules (DECAMP-1). Date of Registration: February 7, 2013. Retrospectively registered as NCT02504697 - DECAMP-2: Screening of Patients With Early Stage Lung Cancer or at High Risk for Developing Lung Cancer (DECAMP-2). Date of Registration: July 22, 2015.

Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial was conducted to determine whether three annual screenings (rounds T0, T1, and T2) with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT), as compared with chest radiography, could reduce mortality from lung cancer. We present detailed findings from the first two incidence screenings (rounds T1 and T2). METHODS: We evaluated the rate of adherence of the participants to the screening protocol, the results of screening and downstream diagnostic tests, features of the lung-cancer cases, and first-line treatments, and we estimated the performance characteristics of both screening methods. RESULTS: At the T1 and T2 rounds, positive screening results were observed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants in the radiography group, respectively. In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specificity was 72.6%, the positive predictive value was 2.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.9% at T1; at T2, the positive predictive value increased to 5.2%. In the radiography group, the sensitivity was 59.6%, the specificity was 94.1%, the positive predictive value was 4.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% at T1; both the sensitivity and the positive predictive value increased at T2. Among lung cancers of known stage, 87 (47.5%) were stage IA and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (23.5%) were stage IA and 78 (59.1%) were stage III or IV at T1. These differences in stage distribution between groups persisted at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage lung cancers, but its measured positive predictive value was lower than that of radiography. As compared with radiography, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of advanced-stage cancers diagnosed and an increase in the number of early-stage lung cancers diagnosed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the largest contributor to mortality from cancer. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) rather than with chest radiography reduced mortality from lung cancer. We describe the screening, diagnosis, and limited treatment results from the initial round of screening in the NLST to inform and improve lung-cancer-screening programs. METHODS: At 33 U.S. centers, from August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled asymptomatic participants, 55 to 74 years of age, with a history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking. The participants were randomly assigned to undergo annual screening, with the use of either low-dose CT or chest radiography, for 3 years. Nodules or other suspicious findings were classified as positive results. This article reports findings from the initial screening examination. RESULTS: A total of 53,439 eligible participants were randomly assigned to a study group (26,715 to low-dose CT and 26,724 to chest radiography); 26,309 participants (98.5%) and 26,035 (97.4%), respectively, underwent screening. A total of 7191 participants (27.3%) in the low-dose CT group and 2387 (9.2%) in the radiography group had a positive screening result; in the respective groups, 6369 participants (90.4%) and 2176 (92.7%) had at least one follow-up diagnostic procedure, including imaging in 5717 (81.1%) and 2010 (85.6%) and surgery in 297 (4.2%) and 121 (5.2%). Lung cancer was diagnosed in 292 participants (1.1%) in the low-dose CT group versus 190 (0.7%) in the radiography group (stage 1 in 158 vs. 70 participants and stage IIB to IV in 120 vs. 112). Sensitivity and specificity were 93.8% and 73.4% for low-dose CT and 73.5% and 91.3% for chest radiography, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NLST initial screening results are consistent with the existing literature on screening by means of low-dose CT and chest radiography, suggesting that a reduction in mortality from lung cancer is achievable at U.S. screening centers that have staff experienced in chest CT. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Impact and costs of targeted recruitment of minorities to the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: To promote results in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) that are generalizable across the entire US population, a subset of NLST sites developed dedicated strategies for minority recruitment. PURPOSE: To report the effects of targeted strategies on the accrual of underrepresented groups, to describe participant characteristics, and to estimate the costs of targeted enrollment. METHODS: The 2002-2004 Tobacco Use Supplement was used to estimate eligible proportions of racial and ethnic categories. Strategic planning included meetings/conferences with key stakeholders and minority organizations. Potential institutions were selected based upon regional racial/ethnic diversity and proven success in recruitment of underrepresented groups. Seven institutions submitted targeted recruitment strategies with budgets. Accrual by racial/ethnic category was tracked for each institution. Cost estimates were based on itemized receipts for minority strategies relative to minority accrual. RESULTS: Of 18,842 participants enrolled, 1576 (8.4%) were minority participants. The seven institutions with targeted recruitment strategies accounted for 1223 (77.6%) of all minority participants enrolled. While there was a significant increase in the rate of minority accrual pre-implementation to post-implementation for the institutions with targeted recruitment (9.3% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.0001), there was no significant difference for the institutions without (3.5% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.46). Minority enrollees at the seven institutions tended to have less than a high school education, be economically disadvantaged, and were more often uninsured. These socio-demographic differences persisted at the seven institutions even after adjusting for race and ethnicity. The success of different strategies varied by institution, and no one strategy was successful across all institutions. Costs for implementation were also highly variable, ranging from $146 to $749 per minority enrollee. LIMITATIONS: Data on minority recruitment processes were not consistently kept at the individual institutions. In addition, participant responses via newspaper advertisements and the efforts of minority staff hired by the institutions could not be coded on Case Report Forms. CONCLUSIONS: Strategic efforts were associated with significant increases in minority enrollment. The greatest successes require that a priori goals be established based on eligible racial/ethnic proportions; the historical performance of sites in minority accrual should factor into the selection of sites; recruitment planning must begin well in advance of trial launch; and there must be endorsement by prominent representatives of the racial groups of interest.