Literature DB >> 35818122

A Randomized Trial of Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.

Kathryn L Taylor1, Randi M Williams1, Tengfei Li2, George Luta2, Laney Smith1, Kimberly M Davis1, Cassandra A Stanton3, Raymond Niaura4, David Abrams4, Tania Lobo1, Jeanne Mandelblatt1, Jinani Jayasekera1, Rafael Meza5, Jihyoun Jeon5, Pianpian Cao5, Eric D Anderson6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer mortality is reduced via low-dose computed tomography screening and treatment of early-stage disease. Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in the lung screening setting can further reduce mortality. We report the results of a cessation trial from the National Cancer Institute's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination collaboration.
METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 818) aged 50-80 years were randomly assigned (May 2017-January 2021) to the intensive vs minimal arms (8 vs 3 phone sessions plus 8 vs 2 weeks of nicotine patches, respectively). Bio-verified (primary) and self-reported 7-day abstinence rates were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months post random assignment. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the effects of study arm. All statistical tests were 2-sided.
RESULTS: Participants reported 48.0 (SD = 17.2) pack-years, and 51.6% were not ready to quit in less than 30 days. Self-reported 3-month quit rates were statistically significantly higher in the intensive vs minimal arm (14.3% vs 7.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26 to 3.18). Bio-verified abstinence was lower but with similar relative differences between arms (9.1% vs 3.9%; OR = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.44 to 5.08). Compared with the minimal arm, the intensive arm was more effective among those with greater nicotine dependence (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.55 to 7.76), normal screening results (OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.32 to 5.03), high engagement in counseling (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.50 to 6.14), and patch use (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.39 to 5.68). Abstinence rates did not differ statistically significantly between arms at 6 months (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.68 to 2.11) or 12 months (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.42).
CONCLUSIONS: Delivering intensive telephone counseling and nicotine replacement with lung screening is an effective strategy to increase short-term smoking cessation. Methods to maintain short-term effects are needed. Even with modest quit rates, integrating cessation treatment into lung screening programs may have a large impact on tobacco-related mortality.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35818122      PMCID: PMC9552302          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   11.816


  60 in total

1.  Cut-off levels for breath carbon monoxide as a marker for cigarette smoking.

Authors:  Martin A Javors; John P Hatch; Richard J Lamb
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 2.  The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time.

Authors:  Bridget Gaglio; Jo Ann Shoup; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  Smoking behaviors among patients receiving computed tomography for lung cancer screening. Systematic review in support of the U.S. preventive services task force.

Authors:  Christopher G Slatore; Christina Baumann; Miranda Pappas; Linda L Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2014-05

4.  Reaching midlife and older smokers: tailored interventions for routine medical care.

Authors:  G D Morgan; E L Noll; C T Orleans; B K Rimer; K Amfoh; G Bonney
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1996 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Lung Cancer Screening Uptake: Analysis of BRFSS 2018.

Authors:  Dustin Kee; Juan Wisnivesky; Minal S Kale
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 6.473

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of NicAlert cotinine test strips in saliva for verifying smoking status.

Authors:  Fiona Cooke; Chris Bullen; Robyn Whittaker; Hayden McRobbie; Mei-Hua Chen; Natalie Walker
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.244

7.  Effect of varying levels of disease management on smoking cessation: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Edward F Ellerbeck; Jonathan D Mahnken; A Paula Cupertino; Lisa Sanderson Cox; K Allen Greiner; Laura M Mussulman; Niaman Nazir; Theresa I Shireman; Kenneth Resnicow; Jasjit S Ahluwalia
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Screening Patterns Among Black and White Adults in the United States.

Authors:  Jessica W Lozier; Stacey A Fedewa; Robert A Smith; Gerard A Silvestri
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-10-01

9.  Long-term smoking cessation outcomes among childhood cancer survivors in the Partnership for Health Study.

Authors:  Karen M Emmons; Elaine Puleo; Ann Mertens; Ellen R Gritz; Lisa Diller; Frederick P Li
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 50.717

10.  A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions.

Authors:  Andrea C Villanti; Yiding Jiang; David B Abrams; Bruce S Pyenson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.

Authors:  Pianpian Cao; Laney Smith; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Jihyoun Jeon; Kathryn L Taylor; Amy Zhao; David T Levy; Randi M Williams; Rafael Meza; Jinani Jayasekera
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2022-07-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.