Andrea K Borondy Kitts1, Andrea B McKee2, Shawn M Regis3, Christoph Wald4, Sebastian Flacke5, Brady J McKee6. 1. Patient Advocate, Lung Cancer Screening Program Consultant, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, USA. 3. Patient Navigator, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, USA. 5. Interventional Radiology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, USA. 6. Thoracic Imaging, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening may provide a "teachable moment" for promoting smoking cessation. This study assessed smoking cessation and relapse rates among individuals undergoing follow-up low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) in a clinical CT lung screening program and assessed the influence of initial screening results on smoking behavior. METHODS: Self-reported smoking status for individuals enrolled in a clinical CT lung screening program undergoing a follow-up CT lung screening exam between 1st February, 2014 and 31st March, 2015 was retrospectively reviewed and compared to self-reported smoking status using a standardized questionnaire at program entry. Point prevalence smoking cessation and relapse rates were calculated across the entire population and compared with exam results. All individuals undergoing screening fulfilled the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Lung Cancer Screening v1.2012(®) high-risk criteria and had an order for CT lung screening. RESULTS: A total of 1,483 individuals underwent a follow-up CT lung screening exam during the study interval. Smoking status at time of follow-up exam was available for 1,461/1,483 (98.5%). A total of 46% (678/1,461) were active smokers at program entry. The overall point prevalence smoking cessation and relapse rates were 20.8% and 9.3%, respectively. Prior positive screening exam results were not predictive of smoking cessation (OR 1.092; 95% CI, 0.715-1.693) but were predictive of reduced relapse among former smokers who had stopped smoking for 2 years or less (OR 0.330; 95% CI, 0.143-0.710). Duration of program enrollment was predictive of smoking cessation (OR 0.647; 95% CI, 0.477-0.877). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation and relapse rates in a clinical CT lung screening program rates are more favorable than those observed in the general population. Duration of participation in the screening program correlated with increased smoking cessation rates. A positive exam result correlated with reduced relapse rates among smokers recently quit smoking.
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening may provide a "teachable moment" for promoting smoking cessation. This study assessed smoking cessation and relapse rates among individuals undergoing follow-up low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) in a clinical CT lung screening program and assessed the influence of initial screening results on smoking behavior. METHODS: Self-reported smoking status for individuals enrolled in a clinical CT lung screening program undergoing a follow-up CT lung screening exam between 1st February, 2014 and 31st March, 2015 was retrospectively reviewed and compared to self-reported smoking status using a standardized questionnaire at program entry. Point prevalence smoking cessation and relapse rates were calculated across the entire population and compared with exam results. All individuals undergoing screening fulfilled the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Lung Cancer Screening v1.2012(®) high-risk criteria and had an order for CT lung screening. RESULTS: A total of 1,483 individuals underwent a follow-up CT lung screening exam during the study interval. Smoking status at time of follow-up exam was available for 1,461/1,483 (98.5%). A total of 46% (678/1,461) were active smokers at program entry. The overall point prevalence smoking cessation and relapse rates were 20.8% and 9.3%, respectively. Prior positive screening exam results were not predictive of smoking cessation (OR 1.092; 95% CI, 0.715-1.693) but were predictive of reduced relapse among former smokers who had stopped smoking for 2 years or less (OR 0.330; 95% CI, 0.143-0.710). Duration of program enrollment was predictive of smoking cessation (OR 0.647; 95% CI, 0.477-0.877). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation and relapse rates in a clinical CT lung screening program rates are more favorable than those observed in the general population. Duration of participation in the screening program correlated with increased smoking cessation rates. A positive exam result correlated with reduced relapse rates among smokers recently quit smoking.
Authors: Lisa Sanderson Cox; Matthew M Clark; James R Jett; Christi A Patten; Darrell R Schroeder; Liza M Nirelli; Stephen J Swensen; Richard D Hurt Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Carlijn Michelle van der Aalst; Karien Anna Margaretha van den Bergh; Marc Christiaan Willemsen; Henricus Johannes de Koning; Robertus Johannes van Klaveren Journal: Thorax Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Cynthia O Townsend; Matthew M Clark; James R Jett; Christi A Patten; Darrell R Schroeder; Liza M Nirelli; Stephen J Swensen; Richard D Hurt Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Samantha A Barry; Martin C Tammemagi; Sofiya Penek; Elisabeth C Kassan; Caroline S Dorfman; Thomas L Riley; John Commin; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jennifer A Lewis; Lucy B Spalluto; Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Samuel M Aguayo; Providencia Morales; Rick Avila; Carolyn M Audet; Beth Prusaczyk; Christopher J Lindsell; Carol Callaway-Lane; Robert S Dittus; Timothy J Vogus; Pierre P Massion; Heather M Limper; Sunil Kripalani; Drew Moghanaki; Christianne L Roumie Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2020-12-26 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Lee Gazourian; William B Thedinger; Shawn M Regis; Elizabeth J Pagura; Lori Lyn Price; Melissa Gawlik; Cristina F Stefanescu; Carla Lamb; Kimberly M Rieger-Christ; Harpreet Singh; Marcel Casasola; Alexander R Walker; Arashdeep Rupal; Avignat S Patel; Carolyn E Come; Ava M Sanayei; William P Long; Giulia S Rizzo; Andrea B McKee; George R Washko; Raul San Jose Estepar; Christoph Wald; Brady J McKee; Carey C Thomson; Timothy N Liesching Journal: Respir Med Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Jaimee L Heffner; Scott Coggeshall; Chelle L Wheat; Paul Krebs; Laura C Feemster; Deborah E Klein; Linda Nici; Hannah Johnson; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 6.473
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: 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
Authors: Luigi Mario Castello; Chiara Airoldi; Marco Baldrighi; Sara Bortoluzzi; Liborio Martino Cammarata; Livia Franchetti Pardo; Clara Ada Gardino; Anil Babu Payedimarri; Matteo Giorchino; Giovanni Pistone; Viviana Stampini; Gian Carlo Avanzi; Fabrizio Faggiano Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.367