The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening
Review Article

The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening

Jennifer Anne Minnix, Maher Karam-Hage, Janice A. Blalock, Paul M. Cinciripini

Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: All authors; (II) Administrative support: JA Minnix, PM Cinciripini; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: None; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: All authors; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: None; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Correspondence to: Jennifer Anne Minnix, PhD. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1439, USA. Email: jminnix@mdanderson.org.

Abstract: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (U.S.) and is the second most common non-skin cancer among men and women, accounting for about 30% of cancer-related deaths. There is clear and accumulating evidence that continued tobacco use has multiple adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes, including greater probability of recurrence, second primary malignancies, reduced survival, greater symptom burden, and poorer quality of life (QOL). Recent findings suggest an avenue to significantly mitigate the impact of smoking on lung cancer mortality rates through the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Based on the reviewed evidence (type B), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines of 2015 recommend screening combined with smoking cessation interventions for high-risk heavy smokers and recent quitters. These practice changes offer opportunities to develop novel smoking cessation strategies tailored to highly specific settings that aim to amplify the survivorship gains expected from screening alone. However, there is a paucity of research and data that speaks to the feasibility and efficacy of providing smoking cessation treatment specifically within the context of the LDCT lung cancer screening environment. While some studies have attempted to characterize the parameters within which smoking cessation interventions should be implemented in this context, further research is needed to explore relevant factors such as the format, components, and timing of interventions, as well as the influence of risk perceptions and results of the screening itself on motivation and ability to quit smoking.

Keywords: Smoking; smoking cessation; lung cancer screening; low-dose computer tomography (LDCT); review


Submitted Jan 05, 2018. Accepted for publication May 07, 2018.

doi: 10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.03


Smoking and cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (U.S.) and it is the most common non-skin cancer affecting both men and women, accounting for an estimated 235,000 new cases in 2018 and about 30% of cancer-related deaths (1). Not surprisingly, cancer patients with smoking-related disease have the highest prevalence of smoking at diagnosis. Among patients with lung or head and neck tumors, smoking prevalence is 40–60% (2-5) and data indicate that 39% of patients with any smoking-related cancer (other than lung cancer) are current smokers (6). Some estimates suggest that up to 50% of patients either do not quit after diagnosis, or relapse following initial quit attempts (2). There is a causal relationship between continued cigarette smoking and all-cause and cancer-specific mortality, higher risk of progression, and increased risk for tobacco-related second primary cancers in cancer patients and survivors (7).

It is estimated that smoking prevalence in the first year following a cancer diagnosis is 23.3% and declines to around 19% in the years following diagnosis (8,9). Tobacco plays a causal role in at least 15 types of cancer (10,11) and accounts for 85% of lung cancer cases (12) and around 30% of the attributable risk for overall cancer mortality (13). There is clear and accumulating evidence that continued tobacco use has multiple adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes. The 2014 Surgeon General’s Report (7) is the first comprehensive, large-scale review of evidence to report a causal relationship between continued tobacco use and adverse outcomes in cancer patients and survivors. This report concludes that the summarized evidence “documents that cigarette smoking has a profound adverse impact on health outcomes in cancer patients” (14).

Further, in the 2014 report the evidence was suggestive that cigarette smoking increases the risk for recurrence, decreases response to treatment and increases toxicities related to cancer treatments (7). These findings provide clear clinical implications for the importance of addressing tobacco in the oncology setting (7). The evidence reviewed suggests that the overall risk of dying could be reduced by 30–40% if patients quit at the time of diagnosis; and smoking cessation in cancer patients may have benefits that are equal to or exceed those of the best cancer treatments available (15). Other potential benefits of cessation include increased physiological and psychological functioning (16-18). However, the accuracy of findings on the benefits of cessation are limited by the quality of tobacco use assessments and accuracy of patient self-report (19), which may underrepresent the extent of adverse effects related to smoking as well as the benefits of cessation (15). The Surgeon General’s Report notes that current smoking status in cancer patients warrants the full attention of the health care team, given evidence that it is a powerful indicator for risk of complications and altered response to treatment.

In particular, continued smoking during cancer treatment is associated with greater probability of recurrence (20,21), second primary malignancies (22-25), reduced survival (26-29), greater symptom burden (30), and poorer quality of life (QOL) (31). Smoking is also associated with deleterious consequences during the perioperative period such as pulmonary embolism, infection, poor wound healing, increased risk of anesthesia and cardiovascular events (32-39) as well as diminished response and complications of radiotherapy (40,41). Conversely, smoking cessation increases the survival from a diagnosed lung cancer (42-44), reduces the risk of complications after primary lung resection (45), and increases QOL in lung cancer patients (46). Taken together, these findings provide a compelling rationale for assuring that these patients are provided with treatment options that have been shown to be efficacious for smoking cessation. Unfortunately, there is a lack of well-controlled prospective studies within the treatment context of the cancer patient (7), particularly lung cancer patients; therefore, aggressive research steps are needed to optimize specific cessation approaches for these patients and settings.

Recent advances in early detection suggest an avenue to significantly mitigate the impact of smoking on lung cancer mortality rates through the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in lung cancer screening, which has resulted in a 20% reduction (compared to annual chest radiography) in lung cancer mortality rates and a 6.7% reduction in all-cause mortality rates (47). The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) then issued a set of recommendations for yearly LDCT screening for select high risk individuals (current and former heavy smokers) (48,49). More specifically, high risk individuals were defined as adults aged 55–74 years who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (49). Later data modeling suggested that benefits of screening may extend up to 80 years of age, thus the expanded age range was revised to be 55–80 years (50). Similar recommendations were subsequently issued by a variety of other agencies, including the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (51), American Cancer Society (52), American College of Chest Physicians (53,54), American Lung Association (53,55), American Society of Clinical Oncology (53), and the American Thoracic Society (56).


Advantages of early detection and intervention in lung cancer

Early detection and intervention has been and continues to be the clinical mantra for most cancers for several decades now, albeit some exceptions (e.g., slow growing prostate cancer, where close observation and regular monitoring is now advocated instead of aggressive intervention). A favorable balance between benefit and risk of an early detection test or procedure (e.g., exposure to radiation or procedures due to false positives) have to be confirmed before recommending it on the population level. As a result of the estimated overall 20% reduction in mortality from lung cancer, the American Cancer Society screening guideline emphasizes that clinicians with access to high-volume, high-quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should ascertain the smoking status and smoking history of their patients ages 55 to 74 years and should initiate a discussion about lung cancer screening with those patients who have at least a 30-pack/year smoking history, currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, and are in relatively good health (11). Interestingly, a recent study suggested that a further expansion of the recommended lung cancer screening population criteria using a more personalized risk-based model may offer even greater overall reductions in mortality benefits as the number of eligible high-risk current and former smokers declines over time (57). A logical next step that is not in debate is the need and benefit of providing the best possible smoking cessation treatments for those who have a positive LDCT; unfortunately, these treatments may or may not be delivered due to different barriers (logistical, economic, and others). On the other hand, helping those who have a negative LDCT (the vast majority of those screened with LDCT) to quit smoking has the potential of an exponential improvement in surviving a lung cancer that is not yet detectable, or even better the prevention of one. Thus, adapting and tailoring the standard smoking cessation interventions to these patients’ needs and circumstances can have major positive effects on those patients’ health and wellbeing as well as the overall public health.


Lung cancer screening results, risk perception, and smoking behavior

Lung cancer screening guidelines have also emphasized that smokers or recent quitters in these programs should be carefully counseled to ensure that the screening itself is not perceived as an adequate replacement for smoking cessation (52) that might lead to patients being less motivated to quit smoking or more likely to relapse, particularly after a negative screening test (58). The Danish Lung Cancer 5-Year Screening Trial, one of the early studies to publish specific smoking data of lung cancer screening patients, randomized 4,120 patients to receive either annual LDCT screening or no intervention. Findings indicated no significant differences in annual smoking status between the two groups, though the overall sample annual point-prevalence quit rates increased from 11% to 24% by year 5 (59). Relapse rates were also similar across both groups. Patients in both groups were provided with brief cessation counseling but were not offered pharmacotherapy. Of further interest, initial analyses of these patients after 1 year of screening showed a significant increase in cessation attempts and decrease in relapse to smoking among patients with a positive scan versus those with a negative scan (60), but this effect was not observed when all 5 years of screening were analyzed (59). In a study that was limited to a cohort of male lung cancer screening with a similar design, patients reported similar quit rates and no differences were observed between smokers who were screened with an LDCT and the control group that was not screened, though a significantly higher number of quit attempts were reported in smokers with a positive screening result (61).

Another study in which researchers interviewed 313 current and former smokers from two lung screening studies [the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the Lung Screening Study (LSS)] before and 1-month following screening reported that NLST participants endorsed greater readiness to quit smoking (P<0.05) at the 1-month follow-up, though the screening result did not moderate this finding. Of importance, among younger participants (≤64) in the LSS sample, an abnormal screening result was significantly associated with increased readiness to quit, whereas a normal result was associated with becoming less ready to quit (P=0.02) (62). A study that included 15,489 patients from the NLST reported that participants with new or unstable screening findings that were suspicious for lung cancer had an odds ratio (OR) for continued smoking of 0.663 (95% CI: 0.607–0.724; P<0.001) when compared to participants with normal screening results (63). An expansion of these findings in a recent study during a 5-year follow-up of this sample, it was reported that any false positive screening result was associated with greater point prevalence as well as greater 6-month sustained abstinence in smokers, and that recent quitters with more than one false positive screening result were less likely to relapse than those with a negative result. Among longer-term former smokers, the screening result was not associated with greater relapse (64). Taken together, the handful of studies to date do not robustly support the supposition that participation in lung cancer screening itself promotes cessation, though the evidence is mixed. However, these data do suggest that positive or false positive screening results may be associated with greater motivation to quit and a higher likelihood of quitting and staying quit (62, 65-67).

A large survey conducted with a variety of cancer patients observed that patients may substantially overestimate the benefit of cancer screening and may have misperceptions about the harm reduction incurred through screening itself (68). In fact, in a study conducting in-depth interviews with a small sample (n=45) of lung cancer screening patients, most patients reported an increased reflection on the harms and long-term consequences of smoking as a result of screening, while as many as half of the patients reported a decrease in the motivation to quit smoking following screening, and described misperceptions such as “undergoing screening yields the same benefits as smoking cessation” and “everyone who undergoes screening will benefit” (69). A similar qualitative study investigating risk perceptions associated with lung cancer screening among screening participants reported that while most patients endorsed high-risk perceptions for lung cancer and other smoking related diseases, these did not translate into quitting behaviors or even increases in motivation to undergo lung screening (70).

Similarly, in a study of 430 NLST patients conducted 1-year following lung cancer screening, patients reported no significant changes in risk perceptions from baseline and no significant changes in risk perceptions were associated with screening results. More significantly, risk perceptions were not associated with smoking behavior (quit rates or relapse rates) and only 10% of these patients reported quitting at the 1-year follow-up (71).

Overall, evidence to date suggests that screening itself does not necessarily promote long term cessation, though participants in screening programs may quit at slightly higher rates than the general population of smokers partly due to demographic or motivational differences in these populations (58,60,72). Research on the role of lung cancer screening results and lung cancer screening-associated risk perceptions on smoking cessation and relapse suggests that these factors may have at least short-term influence on smoking behavior but studies are inconsistent with regard to lasting effects. Thus, there is a tremendous need not only for new interventions that facilitate smoking cessation among lung cancer screening patients, but also for intervention components that address risk perceptions and explicitly, cognitive biases and misperceptions in the lung screening context (69). Moreover, interventions addressing smoking-related risk perceptions should not be limited to lung cancer specifically, but would need to include the other devastating effects of smoking-related diseases, risks, and the reversible health consequences after quitting.


Smoking cessation in the LDCT screening environment

In addition to the established short-term efficacy, several studies in the general population have shown that extended counseling and/or pharmacotherapy enhances treatment outcome and sustained abstinence relative to brief, time limited approaches (73). To achieve similar outcomes among lung cancer screening patients, a more aggressive stance may be needed that would include offering continuous engagement with lung cancer screening patients who recently quit and those who continue to smoke. In line with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Tobacco Clinical Practice Guidelines (73) that recommend consistent assessment and treatment for every tobacco user seen in health care settings, LDCT lung cancer screening provides a clear opportunity to deliver evidence-based smoking cessation treatments to a captive audience of smokers at high risk for lung cancer.

While acknowledging the relative lack of data specific to this population and context, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) as well as the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence (ATTUD) have provided preliminary recommendations for the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to smokers engaging in lung cancer screening that include encouraging patients to quit smoking at every visit regardless of screening results, arranging for behavioral and pharmacological cessation treatments outlined in the PHS Tobacco Clinical Practice Guidelines (73) as well follow-up contacts to support these efforts, and providing evidence-based interventions to increase motivation in patients unwilling to make a quit attempt (74). It is possible that this population of older smokers, albeit at high risk for developing lung cancer, may vary considerably in their motivation to quit (75,76), though the currently available evidence is mixed (77). This population may also perceive little health benefit from cessation given their age (78). What is clearly needed is a treatment strategy that goes well beyond simply advising a patient to quit smoking that is routinely integrated into the screening process to ensure that those who initially quit will not relapse; and that those who initially fail to quit will be repeatedly presented with opportunities to do so in a supportive clinical environment.

This approach was supported in a nested case-control design study conducted with patients enrolled in the NLST. This study assessed the association between reported delivery of the recommended minimal intervention when a smoker is identified in a medical consultation (73), known as the 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist/discuss quitting, and arrange/follow-up), and smoking cessation behaviors (79). The smoking cessation literature generally recommends the use of the 5As for all smokers in the context of any visit with a medical provider, though data suggest that the more effective components of the model, assist and arrange, are less commonly implemented (80). This study included 3,336 participants from 23 American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)-NLST sites. The authors reported that while assist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers was associated with increased quitting (OR =1.40, 95% CI: 1.21–1.63; OR =1.46, 95% CI: 1.19–1.79, respectively), the less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. Moreover, the rates of assist, and especially arrange follow-up, were relatively low (assist 56.4%; arrange 10.4%).

The Lung Health Study (81) was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) to demonstrate a mortality benefit for tobacco cessation in a sample of 5,887 current smokers who received either usual care versus 10 weeks of cessation treatment that included physician messaging, group counseling sessions, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), then followed for 14.5 years. All-cause mortality rates were significantly higher in the usual care group vs. the intervention group (10.38 vs. 8.83 per 1,000 person-years; P=0.03). Moreover, the difference in mortality rates favoring sustained cessation was even more pronounced when patients were analyzed by smoking patterns following the interventions. Mortality rates were 6.04 per 1,000 person-years in sustained quitters vs. 7.77 per 1,000 person-years in intermittent quitters vs. 11.09 per 1,000 person-years in continuing smokers.

There is little data that speaks to the feasibility and efficacy of smoking cessation treatment that occurs specifically within the context of an LDCT scanning environment. Treatment factors that have not yet been well-studied include format, treatment components, and timing of the intervention; and whether behavioral, pharmacological, or a combination of both are provided, though a handful of recent studies have begun to explore these issues in more depth. Two recent studies attempted to incorporate very basic cessation interventions into lung cancer screening settings with discouraging results, reinforcing the need for more intensive treatment strategies in the lung screening setting. In the first study, 171 current smokers were randomized to written materials versus the provision of a list of 10 internet sites with cessation resources. Results indicated that while the internet group was more likely to attempt to quit, there were no differences in abstinence rates at 1 year (between 5% and 10%) (82). van der Aalst and colleagues (61) randomized 1,284 smokers to receive a brochure or a tailored guide to quit smoking but reported no significant difference in abstinence rates at 2 years (tailored 12.5% vs. brochure 15.6%). Of importance, none of the interventions used in these studies were commensurate with the standard counseling and pharmacotherapy recommended by the PHS Tobacco Clinical Practice Guidelines (73).

Conversely, in a small 12-week smoking cessation counseling program combined with varenicline that targeted thoracic oncology patients, smoking abstinence rates at the 12-week follow-up were higher in the intervention group (n=32) as compared to the control group (n=17; 34.4% vs. 14.3%; OR =3.14, 95% CI: 0.59–16.62, P=0.18).

Clinicians were proactive in reaching out to patients during clinic visits to discuss tobacco treatment and participation in the research study. All sessions were structured according to the 5As counseling model (73), included cancer-specific and general smoking cessation topics, were initiated within the first three clinic visits, and were conducted both in-person and by phone (83).

This type of integrated care model could potentially be adapted for a lung cancer screening setting. For example, one small pilot feasibility study initiated a 12-week treatment protocol (including telephone-delivered behavioral therapy and NRT or varenicline) targeting both tobacco cessation and participation in lung cancer screening (84). The study also tested the effects of conducting tobacco dependence treatment before (BCT group) or after (ACT group) the lung scan (randomly assigned) and reported the following results: at 4 months CO confirmed quit rates were 33.3% in the BCT arm and 22.2% in the ACT arm (27.8% overall), and all but one patient made a 24-hour attempt to quit. At 6 months the confirmed abstinence rates decreased to 22.1% in the BCT arm and 11.1% in the ACT arm (16.7% overall). These preliminary results demonstrate that integrated, intensive cessation treatment can significantly impact abstinence rates in lung screening patients and that these rates can be affected by the parameters of the intervention delivery. Tobacco cessation research in oncology settings more generally supports the need of using more than minimal cessation interventions to achieve meaningful reductions in smoking prevalence with cancer patients (85).


Conclusions

It has been well established that tobacco use accounts for 85% of lung cancer cases (12) as well as almost 32% of the attributable risk for overall cancer mortality (13). There is also clear and accumulating evidence that continued tobacco use in cancer patients has multiple adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes. The implementation of a wide variety of agency guidelines will provide opportunities to significantly impact lung cancer mortality rates through early detection and the use of LDCT lung cancer screening. These practice changes also offer opportunities to develop novel smoking cessation strategies tailored to highly specific settings that may amplify the gains in survival that would be expected from screening alone whether an LDCT is positive or not. Smokers in this context may differ in important ways from the general population of smokers and more research is needed to understand the unique characteristics of this population as well as the context within which treatment should be provided. There is little data that speaks to the feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment specifically within the context of the LDCT lung cancer screening environment, including factors such as the optimal treatment provider; format, components, and timing of interventions; and the influence of risk perceptions and results of the screening itself on motivation and ability to quit smoking, though efforts are underway to address these and other important parameters.

In 2015, the J Natl Cancer Inst announced a funding opportunity (R01; RFA-CA-15-011) supporting projects that specifically test smoking cessation interventions in the context of lung cancer screening, with the goal of bolstering the intervention and dissemination effectiveness evidence base, identifying barriers, and estimating feasibility, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of various approaches. A total of eight trials were ultimately included in this collaboration, entitled the Smoking Cessation and Lung Cancer Screening (SCALE) collaborative (including one study funded by the Veterans Health Administration). The aims and background for each of these trials is summarized in a recent paper by Joseph and colleagues (86). This type of initiative is an example of an aggressive effort to advance the understanding of the complex issues surrounding the treatment of smokers and recent quitters at high risk for the development of lung cancer in the context of lung cancer screening, which has the potential for further reductions in the morbidity and mortality associated with lung cancer as well as the myriad of other smoking-related diseases.


Acknowledgements

None.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Walker MS, Vidrine DJ, Gritz ER, et al. Smoking relapse during the first year after treatment for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:2370-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Gritz ER, Nisenbaum R, Elashoff R, et al. Smoking behavior following diagnosis in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1991;2:105-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Lippman SM, Lee JJ, Karp DD, et al. Randomized phase III intergroup trial of isotretinoin to prevent second primary tumors in stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:605-18. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Ostroff JS, Jacobsen PB, Moadel AB, et al. Prevalence and predictors of continued tobacco use after treatment of patients with head and neck cancer. Cancer 1995;75:569-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cigarette Smoking Among Adults - United States 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:1157-61. [PubMed]
  7. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General 2014. Available online: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf
  8. Bellizzi KM, Rowland JH, Jeffery DD, et al. Health behaviors of cancer survivors: examining opportunities for cancer control intervention. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8884-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Mayer DK, Carlson J. Smoking patterns in cancer survivors. Nicotine Tob Res 2011;13:34-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. American Cancer Society. Tobacco related cancer fact sheet, 2014. Available online: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/tobacco-related-cancer-fact-sheet
  11. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2017. Available online: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts- figures-2017.html
  12. Strauss GM. Screening for lung cancer: An evidence-based synthesis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1999;8:747-74. viii. [PubMed]
  13. Jacobs EJ, Newton CC, Carter BD, et al. What proportion of cancer deaths in the contemporary United States is attributable to cigarette smoking? Ann Epidemiol 2015;25:179-82.e1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Warren GW, Sobus S, Gritz ER. The biological and clinical effects of smoking by patients with cancer and strategies to implement evidence-based tobacco cessation support. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e568-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Toll BA, Brandon TH, Gritz ER, et al. Assessing tobacco use by cancer patients and facilitating cessation: an American Association for Cancer Research policy statement. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:1941-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Danson SJ, Rowland C, Rowe R, et al. The relationship between smoking and quality of life in advanced lung cancer patients: a prospective longitudinal study. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:1507-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Duffy SA, Ronis DL, Valenstein M, et al. Depressive symptoms, smoking, drinking, and quality of life among head and neck cancer patients. Psychosomatics 2007;48:142-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Jang S, Prizment A, Haddad T, et al. Smoking and quality of life among female survivors of breast, colorectal and endometrial cancers in a prospective cohort study. J Cancer Surviv 2011;5:115-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Land SR. Methodologic barriers to addressing critical questions about tobacco and cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2030-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Fleshner N, Garland J, Moadel A, et al. Influence of smoking status on the disease-related outcomes of patients with tobacco-associated superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer 1999;86:2337-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Chan JM, et al. Smoking and prostate cancer survival and recurrence. JAMA 2011;305:2548-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Garces YI, Schroeder DR, Nirelli LM, et al. Second primary tumors following tobacco dependence treatments among head and neck cancer patients. Am J Clin Oncol 2007;30:531-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Richardson GE, Tucker MA, Venzon DJ, et al. Smoking cessation after successful treatment of small-cell lung cancer is associated with fewer smoking- related second primary cancers. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:383-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Kawahara M, Ushijima S, Kamimori T, et al. Second primary tumours in more than 2-year disease-free survivors of small-cell lung cancer in Japan: the role of smoking cessation. Br J Cancer 1998;78:409-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Tucker MA, Murray N, Shaw EG, et al. Second primary cancers related to smoking and treatment of small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer Working Cadre. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1782-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Murin S, Inciardi J. Cigarette smoking and the risk of pulmonary metastasis from breast cancer. Chest 2001;119:1635-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Parsons A, Daley A, Begh R, et al. Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis. BMJ 2010;340:b5569. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Warren GW, Kasza KA, Reid ME, et al. Smoking at diagnosis and survival in cancer patients. Int J Cancer 2013;132:401-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Waggoner SE, Darcy KM, Fuhrman B, et al. Association between cigarette smoking and prognosis in locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated with chemoradiation: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103:853-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Peppone LJ, Mustian KM, Morrow GR, et al. The effect of cigarette smoking on cancer treatment-related side effects. Oncologist 2011;16:1784-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  31. Garces YI, Yang P, Parkinson J, et al. The Relationship Between Cigarette Smoking and Quality of Life After Lung Cancer Diagnosis. Chest 2004;126:1733-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  32. Chang DW, Reece GP, Wang B, et al. Effect of smoking on complications in patients undergoing free TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:2374-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  33. Dresler CM, Bailey M, Roper CR, et al. Smoking and lung cancer resection. Chest 1996;110:1199-202. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. Møller AM. Preoperative smoking intervention. J Clin Anesth 2006;18:561-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  35. Theadom A, Cropley M. Effects of preoperative smoking cessation on the incidence and risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications in adult smokers: a systematic review. Tob Control 2006;15:352-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  36. Warner DO. Perioperative abstinence from cigarettes: physiologic and clinical consequences. Anesthesiology 2006;104:356-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  37. Abraham J, Haut MW, Moran MT, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: effects on cerebral white matter seen in diffusion tensor imaging. Clin Breast Cancer 2008;8:88-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  38. Sørensen LT, Hørby J, Friis E, et al. Smoking as a risk factor for wound healing and infection in breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2002;28:815-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  39. Khullar D, Maa J. The impact of smoking on surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:418-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  40. Browman GP, Wong G, Hodson I, et al. Influence of cigarette smoking on the efficacy of radiation therapy in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 1993;328:159-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  41. Zevallos JP, Mallen MJ, Lam CY, et al. Complications of radiotherapy in laryngopharyngeal cancer: Effects of a prospective smoking cessation program. Cancer 2009;115:4636-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  42. Ferketich AK, Niland JC, Mamet R, et al. Smoking status and survival in the national comprehensive cancer network non-small cell lung cancer cohort. Cancer 2013;119:847-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  43. Zhou W, Heist RS, Liu G, et al. Smoking cessation before diagnosis and survival in early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer 2006;53:375-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  44. Ebbert JO, Williams BA, Sun Z, et al. Duration of smoking abstinence as a predictor for non-small-cell lung cancer survival in women. Lung Cancer 2005;47:165-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  45. Mason DP, Subramanian S, Nowicki ER, et al. Impact of smoking cessation before resection of lung cancer: a Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database study. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:362-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  46. Balduyck B, Sardari NP, Cogen A, et al. The effect of smoking cessation on quality of life after lung cancer surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;40:1432-7. [PubMed]
  47. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  48. Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:411-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  49. Moyer VA. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:330-8. [PubMed]
  50. Tanoue LT, Tanner NT, Gould MK, et al. Lung cancer screening. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;191:19-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  51. Jaklitsch MT, Jacobson FL, Austin JH, et al. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;144:33-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  52. Wender R, Fontham ETH, Barrera E, et al. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:107-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  53. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: A systematic review. JAMA 2012;307:2418-29. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  54. Detterbeck FC, Mazzone PJ, Naidich DP, et al. Screening for lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e78S-92S.
  55. American Lung Association. Providing Guidance on Lung Cancer Screening to Patients and Physicians: An Update from the American Lung Association Lung Cancer Screening Committee, 2015. Available online: http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/lung-cancer/lung-cancer- screening-report.pdf
  56. Wiener RS, Gould MK, Arenberg DA, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: Implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;192:881-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  57. Cheung LC, Katki HA, Chaturvedi AK, et al. Preventing Lung Cancer Mortality by Computed Tomography Screening: The Effect of Risk-Based Versus U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Eligibility Criteria, 2005-2015. Ann Intern Med 2018;168:229-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  58. Pedersen JH, Tønnesen P, Ashraf H. Smoking cessation and lung cancer screening. Ann Transl Med 2016;4:157. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  59. Ashraf H, Saghir Z, Dirksen A, et al. Smoking habits in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with low-dose CT: Final results after a 5-year screening programme. Thorax 2014;69:574-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  60. Ashraf H, Tønnesen P, Holst Pedersen J, et al. Effect of CT screening on smoking habits at 1-year follow-up in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). Thorax 2009;64:388-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  61. van der Aalst CM, Koning HJ, de , van den Bergh KA, et al. The effectiveness of a computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention for participants in lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lung Cancer 2012;76:204-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  62. Taylor KL, Cox LS, Zincke N, et al. Lung cancer screening as a teachable moment for smoking cessation. Lung Cancer 2007;56:125-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  63. Tammemagi CM, Neslund-Dudas C, Simoff M, et al. Smoking and lung cancer survival: the role of comorbidity and treatment. Chest 2004;125:27-37. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  64. Clark MA, Gorelick JJ, Sicks JD, et al. The Relations Between False Positive and Negative Screens and Smoking Cessation and Relapse in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for Public Health. Nicotine Tob Res 2016;18:17-24. [PubMed]
  65. van der Aalst CM, van Klaveren RJ, van den Bergh KA, et al. The impact of a lung cancer computed tomography screening result on smoking abstinence. Eur Respir J 2011;37:1466-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  66. Anderson CM, Yip R, Henschke CI, et al. Smoking cessation and relapse during a lung cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:3476-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  67. Slatore CG, Baumann C, Pappas M, et al. Smoking behaviors among patients receiving computed tomography for lung cancer screening. Systematic review in support of the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014;11:619-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  68. Fagerlin A, Sepucha KR, Couper MP, et al. Patients' knowledge about 9 common health conditions: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making 2010;30:35S-52S. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  69. Zeliadt SB, Heffner JL, Sayre G, et al. Attitudes and perceptions about smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1530-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  70. Park ER, Streck JM, Gareen IF, et al. A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants. Nicotine Tob Res 2014;16:166-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  71. Park ER, Gareen IF, Jain A, et al. Examining whether lung screening changes risk perceptions: National Lung Screening Trial participants at 1-year follow-up. Cancer 2013;119:1306-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  72. Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, et al. Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011;73:325-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  73. Fiore MC, Jaen CR, Baker TB, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline, 2008. Available online: https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient_care/clinical_recommendations/TreatingTobaccoUseandDependence-2008Update.pdf
  74. Fucito LM, Czabafy S, Hendricks PS, et al. Pairing smoking- cessation services with lung cancer screening: A clinical guideline from the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. Cancer 2016;122:1150-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  75. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Quitting smoking among adults--United States, 2001-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:1513-9. [PubMed]
  76. Babb S, Malarcher A, Schauer G, et al. Quitting Smoking Among Adults - United States, 2000-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;65:1457-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  77. Hall SM, Humfleet GL, Gorecki JA, et al. Older versus younger treatment-seeking smokers: Differences in smoking behavior, drug and alcohol use, and psychosocial and physical functioning. Nicotine Tob Res 2008;10:463-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  78. Kerr S, Watson H, Tolson D, et al. Smoking after the age of 65 years: A qualitative exploration of older current and former smokers' views on smoking, stopping smoking, and smoking cessation resources and services. Health Soc Care Community 2006;14:572-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  79. Park ER, Gareen IF, Japuntich S, et al. Primary care provider-delivered smoking cessation interventions and smoking cessation among participants in the National Lung Screening Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1509-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  80. Solberg LI, Asche SE, Boyle RG, et al. Frequency of physician-directed assistance for smoking cessation in patients receiving cessation medications. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:656-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  81. Anthonisen NR, Skeans MA, Wise RA, et al. The effects of a smoking cessation intervention on 14.5-year mortality: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:233-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  82. Clark MM, Cox LS, Jett JR, et al. Effectiveness of smoking cessation self-help materials in a lung cancer screening population. Lung Cancer 2004;44:13-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  83. Park ER, Japuntich S, Temel J, et al. A smoking cessation intervention for thoracic surgery and oncology clinics: a pilot trial. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1059-65. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  84. Ferketich AK, Otterson GA, King M, et al. A pilot test of a combined tobacco dependence treatment and lung cancer screening program. Lung Cancer 2012;76:211-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  85. Nayan S, Gupta MK, Sommer DD. Evaluating smoking cessation interventions and cessation rates in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ISRN Oncol 2011;2011:849023. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  86. Joseph AM, Rothman AJ, Almirall D, et al. Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials: SCALE Collaboration. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018;197:172-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Minnix JA, Karam-Hage M, Blalock JA, Cinciripini PM. The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2018;7(3):272-280. doi: 10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.03