INTRODUCTION: Maximizing smoking abstinence in lung cancer screening participants is important to reduce individual risk of disease and improve screening cost-effectiveness; however, the optimal strategy remains undefined. We hypothesized that a single session of tailored face-to-face counseling on the day of screening CT scan, coupled with audio and printed cessation information would be feasible to deliver in a CT screening trial. METHODS: We randomized volunteer smokers in the Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study to intervention (counseling session, audio quit materials, printed quit materials, Quitline contact details) or control group (printed quit materials, Quitline contact details). Participants self-reported point prevalence quit rates at 1 year. RESULTS:Fifty-five smokers were enrolled; 28 randomized to intervention and 27 controls. Median cigarette consumption was 25/day; 54/55 smoked at least 15 cigarettes per day. Median smoking duration was 46 years. Median Fagerström dependence score was 6. In total 58% did not report any quit attempt in the prior 12 months. Mean duration of counseling was 26.5 minutes. After 1 year, four participants (14.3%) in the intervention group and five participants (18.5%) in the control group had quit (P = .74). Combined annual point prevalence quit rate was 16.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Although feasible to deliver a single session of tailored counseling on the day of screening this intervention had no discernible impact on cessation over and above printed materials and Quitline access. As participants exhibited hardcore smoking characteristics, more intensive strategies, in larger cohorts, should be explored. IMPLICATIONS: The optimal smoking cessation strategy within a lung cancer screening program is not known. This study demonstrates that a single session of counseling can be feasibly delivered on the day of screening but may not have been intensive enough for long-term, hard-core smokers.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Maximizing smoking abstinence in lung cancer screening participants is important to reduce individual risk of disease and improve screening cost-effectiveness; however, the optimal strategy remains undefined. We hypothesized that a single session of tailored face-to-face counseling on the day of screening CT scan, coupled with audio and printed cessation information would be feasible to deliver in a CT screening trial. METHODS: We randomized volunteer smokers in the Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study to intervention (counseling session, audio quit materials, printed quit materials, Quitline contact details) or control group (printed quit materials, Quitline contact details). Participants self-reported point prevalence quit rates at 1 year. RESULTS: Fifty-five smokers were enrolled; 28 randomized to intervention and 27 controls. Median cigarette consumption was 25/day; 54/55 smoked at least 15 cigarettes per day. Median smoking duration was 46 years. Median Fagerström dependence score was 6. In total 58% did not report any quit attempt in the prior 12 months. Mean duration of counseling was 26.5 minutes. After 1 year, four participants (14.3%) in the intervention group and five participants (18.5%) in the control group had quit (P = .74). Combined annual point prevalence quit rate was 16.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Although feasible to deliver a single session of tailored counseling on the day of screening this intervention had no discernible impact on cessation over and above printed materials and Quitline access. As participants exhibited hardcore smoking characteristics, more intensive strategies, in larger cohorts, should be explored. IMPLICATIONS: The optimal smoking cessation strategy within a lung cancer screening program is not known. This study demonstrates that a single session of counseling can be feasibly delivered on the day of screening but may not have been intensive enough for long-term, hard-core smokers.
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Charlotte J Hagerman; George Luta; Paula G Bellini; Cassandra Stanton; David B Abrams; Jenna A Kramer; Eric Anderson; Shawn Regis; Andrea McKee; Brady McKee; Ray Niaura; Harry Harper; Michael Ramsaier Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Hasmeena Kathuria; Frank C Detterbeck; Joelle T Fathi; Kathleen Fennig; Michael K Gould; Denise G Jolicoeur; Stephanie R Land; Greta M Massetti; Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Christopher G Slatore; Robert A Smith; Anil Vachani; Steven B Zeliadt; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 30.528
Authors: Giulia Veronesi; David R Baldwin; Claudia I Henschke; Simone Ghislandi; Sergio Iavicoli; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J De Koning; Joseph Shemesh; John K Field; Javier J Zulueta; Denis Horgan; Lucia Fiestas Navarrete; Maurizio Valentino Infante; Pierluigi Novellis; Rachael L Murray; Nir Peled; Cristiano Rampinelli; Gaetano Rocco; Witold Rzyman; Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Martin C Tammemagi; Luca Bertolaccini; Natthaya Triphuridet; Rowena Yip; Alexia Rossi; Suresh Senan; Giuseppe Ferrante; Kate Brain; Carlijn van der Aalst; Lorenzo Bonomo; Dario Consonni; Jan P Van Meerbeeck; Patrick Maisonneuve; Silvia Novello; Anand Devaraj; Zaigham Saghir; Giuseppe Pelosi Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Ellie Eyestone; Randi M Williams; George Luta; Emily Kim; Benjamin A Toll; Alana Rojewski; Jordan Neil; Paul M Cinciripini; Marisa Cordon; Kristie Foley; Jennifer S Haas; Anne M Joseph; Jennifer A Minnix; Jamie S Ostroff; Elyse Park; Nancy Rigotti; Lia Sorgen; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Ben Young; Kavita Vedhara; Denise Kendrick; Roberta Littleford; John F R Robertson; Frank M Sullivan; Stuart Schembri; Roshan das Nair Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.295