SIGNIFICANCE: Although it is a requirement that tobacco treatment is offered to cigarette smokers undergoing low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS), not all smokers engage in treatment. To understand the barriers to tobacco treatment in this setting, we evaluated predictors of attrition in a smoking cessation trial among individuals undergoing LCS. METHODS: Prior to LCS, 926 participants, 50-80 years old, completed the baseline (T0) phone assessment, including demographic, clinical, tobacco, and psychological characteristics. Following LCS and receipt of the results, participants completed the pre-randomization (T1) assessment. RESULTS: At the T1 assessment, 735 (79%) participants were retained and 191 (21%) dropped out. In multivariable analyses, attrition was higher among those who: smoked >1 pack per day (OR = 1.44, CI 1.01, 2.06) or had undergone their first (vs. annual) LCS scan (OR = 1.70, CI 1.20, 2.42). Attrition was lower among those with: more education (associates (OR = 0.67, CI = 0.46, 0.98) or bachelor's degree (OR = 0.56, CI 0.35, 0.91) vs. high school/GED), some (vs. none/a little) worry about lung cancer (OR = 0.60, CI 0.39, 0.92), or a screening result that was benign (OR = 0.57, CI 0.39, 0.82) or probably benign (OR = 0.38, CI 0.16, 0.90) vs. negative. CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminated several LCS-related factors that contributed to trial attrition. Increasing tobacco treatment in this setting will require targeted strategies for those who report little lung cancer worry, are undergoing their first LCS exam, and/or who have a negative LCS result. Addressing attrition and reducing barriers to tobacco treatment will increase the likelihood of cessation, thereby reducing the risk of developing lung cancer.
SIGNIFICANCE: Although it is a requirement that tobacco treatment is offered to cigarette smokers undergoing low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS), not all smokers engage in treatment. To understand the barriers to tobacco treatment in this setting, we evaluated predictors of attrition in a smoking cessation trial among individuals undergoing LCS. METHODS: Prior to LCS, 926 participants, 50-80 years old, completed the baseline (T0) phone assessment, including demographic, clinical, tobacco, and psychological characteristics. Following LCS and receipt of the results, participants completed the pre-randomization (T1) assessment. RESULTS: At the T1 assessment, 735 (79%) participants were retained and 191 (21%) dropped out. In multivariable analyses, attrition was higher among those who: smoked >1 pack per day (OR = 1.44, CI 1.01, 2.06) or had undergone their first (vs. annual) LCS scan (OR = 1.70, CI 1.20, 2.42). Attrition was lower among those with: more education (associates (OR = 0.67, CI = 0.46, 0.98) or bachelor's degree (OR = 0.56, CI 0.35, 0.91) vs. high school/GED), some (vs. none/a little) worry about lung cancer (OR = 0.60, CI 0.39, 0.92), or a screening result that was benign (OR = 0.57, CI 0.39, 0.82) or probably benign (OR = 0.38, CI 0.16, 0.90) vs. negative. CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminated several LCS-related factors that contributed to trial attrition. Increasing tobacco treatment in this setting will require targeted strategies for those who report little lung cancer worry, are undergoing their first LCS exam, and/or who have a negative LCS result. Addressing attrition and reducing barriers to tobacco treatment will increase the likelihood of cessation, thereby reducing the risk of developing lung cancer.
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: Martin C Tammemägi; Christine D Berg; Thomas L Riley; Christopher R Cunningham; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Danielle E Deros; Shelby Fallon; Jennifer Stephens; Emily Kim; Tania Lobo; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Rafael Meza; Cassandra A Stanton; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Brady McKee; Judith Howell; Michael Ramsaier; Juan Batlle; Ellen Dornelas; Vicky Parikh; Eric Anderson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jamie S Ostroff; Amy Copeland; Sarah P Borderud; Yuelin Li; Donna R Shelley; Claudia I Henschke Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rebecca Landy; Corey D Young; Martin Skarzynski; Li C Cheung; Christine D Berg; M Patricia Rivera; Hilary A Robbins; Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Randi M Williams; Marisa Cordon; Ellie Eyestone; Laney Smith; George Luta; Brady J McKee; Shawn M Regis; David B Abrams; Raymond S Niaura; Cassandra A Stanton; Vicky Parikh; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Randi M Williams; Ellie Eyestone; Laney Smith; Joanna G Philips; Julia Whealan; Marguerite Webster; Tengfei Li; George Luta; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Samantha Groves; Grace McCutchan; Samantha L Quaife; Rachael L Murray; Jamie S Ostroff; Kate Brain; Philip A J Crosbie; Janelle Yorke; David Baldwin; John K Field; Lorna McWilliams Journal: Health Expect Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.318