Feasibility of precision smoking treatment in a low-income community setting: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial in The Southern Community Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of precision smoking treatment in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities has not been studied. METHODS: Participants in the Southern Community Cohort Study who smoked daily were invited to join a pilot randomized controlled trial of three smoking cessation interventions: guideline-based care (GBC), GBC plus nicotine metabolism-informed care (MIC), and GBC plus counseling guided by a polygenic risk score (PRS) for lung cancer. Feasibility was assessed by rates of study enrollment, engagement, and retention, targeting > 70% for each. Using logistic regression, we also assessed whether feasibility varied by age, sex, race, income, education, and attitudes toward precision smoking treatment. RESULTS: Of 92 eligible individuals (79.3% Black; 68.2% with household income < $15,000), 67 (72.8%; 95% CI 63.0-80.9%) enrolled and were randomized. Of these, 58 (86.6%; 95% CI 76.4-92.8%) engaged with the intervention, and of these engaged participants, 43 (74.1%; 95% CI 61.6-83.7%) were retained at 6-month follow-up. Conditional on enrollment, older age was associated with lower engagement (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95, p = 0.008). Conditional on engagement, retention was significantly lower in the PRS arm than in the GBC arm (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03-1.00, p = 0.050). No other selection effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Genetically informed precision smoking cessation interventions are feasible in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, exhibiting high enrollment, engagement, and retention irrespective of race, sex, income, education, or attitudes toward precision smoking treatment. Future smoking cessation interventions in this population should take steps to engage older people and to sustain participation in interventions that include genetic risk counseling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03521141, Registered 27 April 2018, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT03521141.

Should we be screening for COPD? - looking through the lens of lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: In May 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force published their recommendation against screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asymptomatic adults. However, we argue the routine use of spirometry in both asymptomatic and symptomatic high-risk smokers has utility. AREAS COVERED: We provide published and unpublished observations from a secondary analyses of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, including 18,463 high-risk current or former smokers who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline. According to history alone, 20% reported a prior diagnosis of 'COPD,' although only 11% (about one half), actually had airflow limitation (Diagnosed COPD) and 9% had Global Initiative for Obstructive Pulmonary Disease GOLD 0 Pre-COPD. Of the remaining 80% of 'asymptomatic' screening participants, 23% had airflow limitation (Screen-detected COPD) and 13% had preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm). This means 45% of this high-risk cohort were reclassified by spirometry, and together with comorbid disease, identified subgroups where lung cancer screening efficacy could be optimized by between 2-6 fold. EXPERT OPINION: Our preliminary findings suggest lung cancer screening outcomes vary according to 'new' COPD-related spirometric-defined subgroups and that screening spirometry, together with comorbid disease, identifies those for whom lung cancer screening is mostly beneficial or potentially harmful.

Airflow limitation and mortality during cancer screening in the National Lung Screening Trial: why quantifying airflow limitation matters.

IMPORTANCE: Current eligibility criteria for lung cancer (LC) screening are derived from randomised controlled trials and primarily based on age and smoking history. However, the individual benefits of screening are highly variable and potentially attenuated by co-morbidities such as advanced airflow limitation (AL). OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the presence and severity of AL and screening outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of 18 463 high-risk smokers, a substudy from the National Lung Screening Trial, who underwent pre-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline and median follow-up of 6.1 years. We used descriptive statistics and a competing risk proportional hazards model to examine differences in screening outcomes by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severity group. RESULTS: The risk of developing LC increased with worsening AL (effect size=0.34, p<0.0001), as did the risk of dying of LC (effect size=0.35, p<0.0001). While those with severe AL (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease, GOLD grade 3-4) had the highest risk of LC and the highest LC mortality, they also had fewer adenocarcinomas (effect size=-0.20, p=0.008) and a lower surgery rate (effect size=-0.16, p=0.014) despite comparable staging, and greater non-LC mortality relative to LC mortality (effect size=0.30, p<0.0001). In participants with no AL, screening with CT was associated with a significant reduction in LC deaths relative to chest X-ray (30.3%, 95% CI 4.5% to 49.2%, p<0.05). The clinically relevant but attenuated reduction in those with AL (18.5%, 95% CI -8.4% to 38.7%, p>0.05) could be attributed to GOLD 3-4, where no appreciable mortality reduction was observed. CONCLUSION: Despite a greater risk of LC, severe AL was not associated with any apparent reduction in LC mortality following screening.

Dispositional optimism and optimistic bias: Associations with cessation motivation, confidence, and attitudes.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether 2 conceptually overlapping constructs, dispositional optimism (generalized positive expectations) and optimistic bias (inaccurately low risk perceptions), may have different implications for smoking treatment engagement. METHOD: Predominantly Black, low-income Southern Community Cohort study smokers (n = 880) self-reported dispositional optimism and pessimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised subscales: 0 = neutral, 12 = high optimism/pessimism), comparative lung cancer risk (Low/Average/High), and information to calculate objective lung cancer risk (Low/Med/High). Perceived risk was categorized as accurate (perceived = objective), optimistically-biased (perceived < objective), or pessimistically-biased (perceived > objective). One-way ANOVAs tested associations between dispositional optimism/pessimism and perceived risk accuracy. Multivariable logistic regressions tested independent associations of optimism/pessimism and perceived risk accuracy with cessation motivation (Low/High), confidence (Low/High), and precision treatment attitudes (Favorable/Unfavorable), controlling for sociodemographics and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: Mean dispositional optimism/pessimism scores were 8.41 (SD = 2.59) and 5.65 (SD = 3.02), respectively. Perceived lung cancer risk was 38% accurate, 27% optimistically-biased, and 35% pessimistically-biased. Accuracy was unrelated to dispositional optimism (F(2, 641) = 1.23, p = .29), though optimistically-biased (vs. pessimistically-biased) smokers had higher dispositional pessimism (F(2, 628) = 3.17, p = .043). Dispositional optimism was associated with higher confidence (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.71, 95% CI [1.42, 2.06], p < .001) and favorable precision treatment attitudes (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.37, 2.01], p < .001). Optimistically-biased (vs. accurate) risk perception was associated with lower motivation (AOR = .64, 95% CI [.42, .98], p = .041) and less favorable precision treatment attitudes (AOR = .59, 95% CI [.38, .94], p = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Dispositional optimism and lung cancer risk perception accuracy were unrelated. Dispositional optimism was associated with favorable engagement-related outcomes and optimistically-biased risk perception with unfavorable outcomes, reinforcing the distinctiveness of these constructs and their implications for smoking treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Chr15q25 genetic variant (rs16969968) independently confers risk of lung cancer, COPD and smoking intensity in a prospective study of high-risk smokers.

IMPORTANCE: While cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 5 (CHRNA5) variants have been linked to lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and smoking addiction in case-controls studies, their corelationship is not well understood and requires retesting in a cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To re-examine the association between the CHRNA5 variant (rs16969968 AA genotype) and the development of lung cancer, relative to its association with COPD and smoking. METHODS: In 9270 Non-Hispanic white subjects from the National Lung Screening Trial, a substudy of high-risk smokers were followed for an average of 6.4 years. We compared CHRNA5 genotype according to baseline smoking exposure, lung function and COPD status. We also compared the lung cancer incidence rate, and used multiple logistic regression and mediation analysis to examine the role of the AA genotype of the CHRNA5 variant in smoking exposure, COPD and lung cancer. RESULTS: As previously reported, we found the AA high-risk genotype was associated with lower lung function (p=0.005), greater smoking intensity (p<0.001), the presence of COPD (OR 1.28 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.49) p=0.0015) and the development of lung cancer (HR 1.41, (95% CI 1.03 to 1.93) p=0.03). In a mediation analyses, the AA genotype was independently associated with smoking intensity (OR 1.42 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.60, p<0.0001), COPD (OR 1.25, (95% CI 1.66 to 2.53), p=0.0015) and developing lung cancer (OR 1.37, (95% CI 1.03 to 1.82) p=0.03). CONCLUSION: In this large-prospective study, we found the CHRNA5 rs 16 969 968 AA genotype to be independently associated with smoking exposure, COPD and lung cancer (triple whammy effect).

Correction to: Community Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening: A Prospective Cohort Study.

The original version of this article contained an error in the usage of the term "false positive rate". The intention of the authors in those instances was simply to compare the absolute percentage of false positive results in the study vs the NLST, not to make any observations about false positive rate in the strict statistical sense (i.e. Type I error probability).

The potential impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in lung cancer screening: implications for the screening clinic.

Introduction: Following the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), lung cancer screening is now recommended in the United States. However, post-hoc analyses of the NLST suggest that reducing lung cancer mortality through screening is highly dependent on the underlying characteristics of the screening participants, in particular, the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Areas covered: In this review, we outline how outcomes in lung cancer screening are significantly affected by the presence of airflow limitation, as caused by COPD, and how this might impact the assessment of eligible smokers in a lung cancer screening clinic. Expert opinion: There is growing evidence showing that CT-based screening for lung cancer reduces lung cancer mortality. The benefits of screening exceed those seen in the NLST when screening is carried out in lower risk populations, for a longer duration, and when outcomes are compared with usual care control cohorts. In this article, we review data from a post-hoc analysis of the NLST. We suggest that whilst worsened airflow limitation is associated with greater lung cancer risk, there is also more aggressive lung cancer, reduced lung cancer operability, and for advanced COPD, reduced benefits from screening. We advocate an 'outcomes-based' approach to screening over a 'risk-based' approach.

Attitudes toward Precision Treatment of Smoking in the Southern Community Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Precision interventions using biological data may enhance smoking treatment, yet are understudied among smokers who are disproportionately burdened by smoking-related disease. METHODS: We surveyed smokers in the NCI-sponsored Southern Community Cohort Study, consisting primarily of African-American, low-income adults. Seven items assessed attitudes toward aspects of precision smoking treatment, from undergoing tests to acting on results. Items were dichotomized as favorable (5 = strongly agree/4 = agree) versus less favorable (1 = strongly disagree/2 = disagree/3 = neutral); a summary score reflecting generalized attitudes was also computed. Multivariable logistic regression tested independent associations of motivation (precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation) and confidence in quitting (low, medium, and high) with generalized attitudes, controlling for sociodemographic factors and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: More than 70% of respondents endorsed favorable generalized attitudes toward precision medicine, with individual item favorability ranging from 64% to 83%. Smokers holding favorable generalized attitudes reported higher income and education (P < 0.05). Predicted probabilities of favorable generalized attitudes ranged from 63% to 75% across motivation levels [contemplation vs. precontemplation: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-3.25, P = 0.001; preparation vs. precontemplation: AOR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.20-2.78, P = 0.005; contemplation vs. preparation: AOR = 1.15, 95% CI, 0.75-1.77, P = 0.52] and from 59% to 78% across confidence (medium vs. low: AOR = 1.91, 95% CI, 1.19-3.07, P = 0.007; high vs. low: AOR = 2.62, 95% CI, 1.68-4.10, P < 0.001; medium vs. high: AOR = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.48-1.11, P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Among disproportionately burdened community smokers, most hold favorable attitudes toward precision smoking treatment. Individuals with lower motivation and confidence to quit may benefit from additional intervention to engage with precision smoking treatment. IMPACT: Predominantly favorable attitudes toward precision smoking treatment suggest promise for future research testing their effectiveness and implementation.

Mevalonate signaling, COPD and cancer: the statins and beyond.

Evidence suggests that smoking confers a persistent and/or exaggerated inflammatory response in the lungs that, with underlying genetic susceptibility, may result in lung remodeling and impaired repair. The innate immune response to smoking described above, which is modified by the mevalonate pathway, provides a plausible pathogenic link between the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. The mevalonate pathway modifies innate responsiveness through important intracellular signaling molecules called guanine phosphate transferases (GTPases) such as Rho-A. Smoke exposure activates cell surface proteins which, through the mediating influence of GTPases, then modifies the activation of nuclear factor kappa -light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NFĸB) its downstream effects on genes underlying innate immunity, neutrophilic inflammation and carcinogenesis. The mevalonate pathway is modifiable through the enzyme 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-Coenzyme A (HMGCo-A) reductase. This enzyme controls the rate limiting step of the mevalonate pathway and is subject to inhibition by statin drugs (HMGCo-A reductase inhibitors) and small chain fatty acids derived from high dietary fiber intake. Ths, inhibitory effect dampens the innate immune response to smoking and may modify pulmonary inflammation and lung remodeling. This article is a symposia summary outlining the preclinical and clinical data suggesting that statins and a high-fiber diet may have a chemopreventive effect on lung cancer.

Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.