TBD Meeting (4860-22)

Lung cancer screening has been a success story in high-income countries, leading to a shift in diagnoses to earlier stages and a reduction in mortality among eligible groups.

A new report shows that middle- and low-income countries are being left out. “We do have good screening programs and some national ones, even in smaller European countries and in Canada, but in low- and middle-income countries where the mortality rates and the incidence of lung cancer is higher than in high-income countries, these programs are not implemented either at all or not implemented nationwide. This is a huge problem in the world,” said Milena Cavic, PhD, who presented the interim results on behalf of the diagnostics working group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer early detection and screening committee at a press conference on Aug. 7 at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Cavic is a senior research associate at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade.

“It’s definitely a work in progress, and it’s also about raising awareness of the problem. In several parts of Asia, in Taiwan, in Korea, smoking is not the major, or at least, not the only reason for getting lung cancer. The other reasons are family history and also environmental factors like cooking fires, etc. So, the criteria we have for screening in Western countries are not one to one implementable in these countries,” said Rudolf Huber, MD, PhD, a respiratory physician at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and a coauthor of the report.

The report also pointed out the lack of recommendations for lung cancer screening in middle- and low-income countries. One approach would be to produce recommendations for countries with similar infrastructures and health resources, as well as primary risk factors such as smoking or cooking fires. “We have to adapt it to the various situations,” said Dr. Huber.

Another possibility is to rework existing recommendations for high income countries to adapt them to low- and middle-income countries. In the coming year, the working group will conduct a modeling study of Serbia, China, South Africa, and Columbia. It will look at population-specific and geographic factors from each country to produce country-specific models. “It will be interesting to see if these models will give us new recommendations for countries like this. So we can derive something from the high-income countries, but it will need to be adapted very, very much,” said Dr. Cavic.

The report highlighted some of the disparities between countries. CT scanners are far more common in high-income countries. Japan leads the way at 111.5 per million residents, followed by Australia at 70.2, Iceland at 47.6, and the United States at 44.9. At the other end is Columbia with 1.3, which trails Mexico at 5.9, Hungary at 9.4, and the United Kingdom at 9.5. However, the authors point out that there is no consensus on the optimum number of CT scanners per capita, since too few can lead to lack of access and too many can result in overuse. In fact, the greatest number of CT scans performed per capita was in the United States (278.5 per million), followed by Iceland (234.4), Japan (230.8), and Korea (228.1).

Lung cancer screening can be at odds with other health priorities, especially in low-income countries. These can include HIV, tuberculosis, and granulomatous diseases. But that could also provide an opportunity, according to Dr. Huber. “For example, in South Africa, tuberculosis programs are done by chest x-ray. We now have data that [allows us to] detect nodules by artificial intelligence, so one of the things we are thinking about is whether we could even use chest x-ray to get an earlier detection. At the end, it may be that in some countries it’s possible to do the classical CT screening, while in other countries we have to adapt to other options – probably chest x-ray using artificial intelligence or computer-aided diagnosis. And, then a consequent program for following up and managing the incidentally diagnosed nodules.”

The group is hoping to explore the environmental factors that could affect lung cancer risk in middle- and low-income countries. That is difficult to do, however, because smoking data can be hard to come by in many countries, and there is general uncertainty about what other risk factors may exist, though air pollution is a clear suspect. “It is something we are hoping to focus on in the future because there is a subgroup of individuals without a smoking history who are at high risk. It would be really good to find this high-risk population that should actually be screened in the future,” Dr. Cavic said.

Some countries have no data on lung cancer screening. For example, only South Africa is represented from Africa, and data is missing from many countries in Asia. The diagnostics working group of the IASLC early detection and screening committee has created a survey to gather information on the availability of lung cancer screening and its effect on diagnosis and treatment in countries throughout the world.

Dr. Cavic and Dr. Huber reported no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the IASLC.

Lung cancer screening has been a success story in high-income countries, leading to a shift in diagnoses to earlier stages and a reduction in mortality among eligible groups.

A new report shows that middle- and low-income countries are being left out. “We do have good screening programs and some national ones, even in smaller European countries and in Canada, but in low- and middle-income countries where the mortality rates and the incidence of lung cancer is higher than in high-income countries, these programs are not implemented either at all or not implemented nationwide. This is a huge problem in the world,” said Milena Cavic, PhD, who presented the interim results on behalf of the diagnostics working group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer early detection and screening committee at a press conference on Aug. 7 at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Cavic is a senior research associate at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade.

“It’s definitely a work in progress, and it’s also about raising awareness of the problem. In several parts of Asia, in Taiwan, in Korea, smoking is not the major, or at least, not the only reason for getting lung cancer. The other reasons are family history and also environmental factors like cooking fires, etc. So, the criteria we have for screening in Western countries are not one to one implementable in these countries,” said Rudolf Huber, MD, PhD, a respiratory physician at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and a coauthor of the report.

The report also pointed out the lack of recommendations for lung cancer screening in middle- and low-income countries. One approach would be to produce recommendations for countries with similar infrastructures and health resources, as well as primary risk factors such as smoking or cooking fires. “We have to adapt it to the various situations,” said Dr. Huber.

Another possibility is to rework existing recommendations for high income countries to adapt them to low- and middle-income countries. In the coming year, the working group will conduct a modeling study of Serbia, China, South Africa, and Columbia. It will look at population-specific and geographic factors from each country to produce country-specific models. “It will be interesting to see if these models will give us new recommendations for countries like this. So we can derive something from the high-income countries, but it will need to be adapted very, very much,” said Dr. Cavic.

The report highlighted some of the disparities between countries. CT scanners are far more common in high-income countries. Japan leads the way at 111.5 per million residents, followed by Australia at 70.2, Iceland at 47.6, and the United States at 44.9. At the other end is Columbia with 1.3, which trails Mexico at 5.9, Hungary at 9.4, and the United Kingdom at 9.5. However, the authors point out that there is no consensus on the optimum number of CT scanners per capita, since too few can lead to lack of access and too many can result in overuse. In fact, the greatest number of CT scans performed per capita was in the United States (278.5 per million), followed by Iceland (234.4), Japan (230.8), and Korea (228.1).

Lung cancer screening can be at odds with other health priorities, especially in low-income countries. These can include HIV, tuberculosis, and granulomatous diseases. But that could also provide an opportunity, according to Dr. Huber. “For example, in South Africa, tuberculosis programs are done by chest x-ray. We now have data that [allows us to] detect nodules by artificial intelligence, so one of the things we are thinking about is whether we could even use chest x-ray to get an earlier detection. At the end, it may be that in some countries it’s possible to do the classical CT screening, while in other countries we have to adapt to other options – probably chest x-ray using artificial intelligence or computer-aided diagnosis. And, then a consequent program for following up and managing the incidentally diagnosed nodules.”

The group is hoping to explore the environmental factors that could affect lung cancer risk in middle- and low-income countries. That is difficult to do, however, because smoking data can be hard to come by in many countries, and there is general uncertainty about what other risk factors may exist, though air pollution is a clear suspect. “It is something we are hoping to focus on in the future because there is a subgroup of individuals without a smoking history who are at high risk. It would be really good to find this high-risk population that should actually be screened in the future,” Dr. Cavic said.

Some countries have no data on lung cancer screening. For example, only South Africa is represented from Africa, and data is missing from many countries in Asia. The diagnostics working group of the IASLC early detection and screening committee has created a survey to gather information on the availability of lung cancer screening and its effect on diagnosis and treatment in countries throughout the world.

Dr. Cavic and Dr. Huber reported no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the IASLC.

Lung cancer screening has been a success story in high-income countries, leading to a shift in diagnoses to earlier stages and a reduction in mortality among eligible groups.

A new report shows that middle- and low-income countries are being left out. “We do have good screening programs and some national ones, even in smaller European countries and in Canada, but in low- and middle-income countries where the mortality rates and the incidence of lung cancer is higher than in high-income countries, these programs are not implemented either at all or not implemented nationwide. This is a huge problem in the world,” said Milena Cavic, PhD, who presented the interim results on behalf of the diagnostics working group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer early detection and screening committee at a press conference on Aug. 7 at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Cavic is a senior research associate at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade.

“It’s definitely a work in progress, and it’s also about raising awareness of the problem. In several parts of Asia, in Taiwan, in Korea, smoking is not the major, or at least, not the only reason for getting lung cancer. The other reasons are family history and also environmental factors like cooking fires, etc. So, the criteria we have for screening in Western countries are not one to one implementable in these countries,” said Rudolf Huber, MD, PhD, a respiratory physician at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and a coauthor of the report.

The report also pointed out the lack of recommendations for lung cancer screening in middle- and low-income countries. One approach would be to produce recommendations for countries with similar infrastructures and health resources, as well as primary risk factors such as smoking or cooking fires. “We have to adapt it to the various situations,” said Dr. Huber.

Another possibility is to rework existing recommendations for high income countries to adapt them to low- and middle-income countries. In the coming year, the working group will conduct a modeling study of Serbia, China, South Africa, and Columbia. It will look at population-specific and geographic factors from each country to produce country-specific models. “It will be interesting to see if these models will give us new recommendations for countries like this. So we can derive something from the high-income countries, but it will need to be adapted very, very much,” said Dr. Cavic.

The report highlighted some of the disparities between countries. CT scanners are far more common in high-income countries. Japan leads the way at 111.5 per million residents, followed by Australia at 70.2, Iceland at 47.6, and the United States at 44.9. At the other end is Columbia with 1.3, which trails Mexico at 5.9, Hungary at 9.4, and the United Kingdom at 9.5. However, the authors point out that there is no consensus on the optimum number of CT scanners per capita, since too few can lead to lack of access and too many can result in overuse. In fact, the greatest number of CT scans performed per capita was in the United States (278.5 per million), followed by Iceland (234.4), Japan (230.8), and Korea (228.1).

Lung cancer screening can be at odds with other health priorities, especially in low-income countries. These can include HIV, tuberculosis, and granulomatous diseases. But that could also provide an opportunity, according to Dr. Huber. “For example, in South Africa, tuberculosis programs are done by chest x-ray. We now have data that [allows us to] detect nodules by artificial intelligence, so one of the things we are thinking about is whether we could even use chest x-ray to get an earlier detection. At the end, it may be that in some countries it’s possible to do the classical CT screening, while in other countries we have to adapt to other options – probably chest x-ray using artificial intelligence or computer-aided diagnosis. And, then a consequent program for following up and managing the incidentally diagnosed nodules.”

The group is hoping to explore the environmental factors that could affect lung cancer risk in middle- and low-income countries. That is difficult to do, however, because smoking data can be hard to come by in many countries, and there is general uncertainty about what other risk factors may exist, though air pollution is a clear suspect. “It is something we are hoping to focus on in the future because there is a subgroup of individuals without a smoking history who are at high risk. It would be really good to find this high-risk population that should actually be screened in the future,” Dr. Cavic said.

Some countries have no data on lung cancer screening. For example, only South Africa is represented from Africa, and data is missing from many countries in Asia. The diagnostics working group of the IASLC early detection and screening committee has created a survey to gather information on the availability of lung cancer screening and its effect on diagnosis and treatment in countries throughout the world.

Dr. Cavic and Dr. Huber reported no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the IASLC.

A new study finds that patients with screen-detected lung cancer are at increased risk for a second primary lung cancer diagnosis, with about half occurring within 6 months of the first diagnosis. More than 80% of second primary cancers diagnosed within 2 years were stage 1, compared with about 25% when diagnosed more than 5 years later.

“With the growing adoption of lung cancer screening, more patients are being diagnosed with early-stage lung cancers and are able to achieve excellent long-term survival. After lung cancer diagnosis, these patients remain at high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer. The incidence, timing, and survival of second primary lung cancers is not well understood, particularly in a patient population with initial primary lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening,” said Alexandra Potter, who is a study coauthor.

The results were presented by Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang, MD, at a press conference held at the World Conference on Lung Cancer sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Yang is a thoracic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A 2012 study analyzed data from the SEER database and found that lung cancer survivors had a four- to sixfold increase in the risk of developing a second primary lung cancer, compared with the risk of lung cancer in the general population after adjusting for sex, age, race, and calendar year. “That study demonstrated that second primary lung cancers are an important risk among lung cancer survivors. However, it did not evaluate patients diagnosed with initial lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening. Thus, the incidence, timing, characteristics, and survival of lung cancers diagnosed among patients diagnosed with initial lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening remain unknown,” said Ms. Potter, who is a research assistant at Massachusetts General Hospital and president of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative.

To address that question, the researchers used data from the National Lung Screening Trial, which compared low-dose computed tomography to chest x-ray and found that the former led to a 15%-20% lower risk of death. The new analysis included 1,405 patients who were diagnosed with stage I-III lung cancer and treated between 2002 and 2009. Of these patients, 5.8% went on to be diagnosed with a second primary lung cancer, at a rate of 1%-2% per year. Of the second lung cancers, 54.9% were synchronous, occurring within 6 months of the diagnosis, and 45.1% were metachronous, occurring later than 6 months; 65% of synchronous secondary cancers and 81% of metachronous cancers were diagnosed at stage I; 24% of synchronous and 14% of metachronous were stage III (P = .25). The median time to diagnosis of metachronous lung cancers was 2.7 years, and 27% of the second primary tumors were diagnosed 4 or more years after the first diagnosis.

Among those with synchronous tumors, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 55.2% and 39.5%. The rates were 90.0% and 30.8% among metachronous tumors, respectively. Ms. Potter emphasized that most patients with second primary cancer were diagnosed at stage I, suggesting that it is very possible to catch these cancers early. But patients who were diagnosed with a second primary tumor 4 or more years after their first diagnosis had a greater likelihood of later-stage second cancer. Medical societies generally recommend CT screening surveillance every 6 months for 2 years following a lung cancer diagnosis, then annually thereafter. The greater frequency of later-stage cancer detected after 4 years suggests that surveillance may be flagging as time goes on. “These data highlight the importance of lifelong follow up after initial lung cancer diagnosis,” said Ms. Potter.

She also emphasized the importance of smoking cessation and ongoing abstinence following a diagnosis of lung cancer. “About 70% of patients in the NLST who developed second primary lung cancer currently smoked at the time of entry into the trial. Smoking cessation can help reduce patients’ risk of developing second primary lung cancers,” she said. Ms. Potter has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study finds that patients with screen-detected lung cancer are at increased risk for a second primary lung cancer diagnosis, with about half occurring within 6 months of the first diagnosis. More than 80% of second primary cancers diagnosed within 2 years were stage 1, compared with about 25% when diagnosed more than 5 years later.

“With the growing adoption of lung cancer screening, more patients are being diagnosed with early-stage lung cancers and are able to achieve excellent long-term survival. After lung cancer diagnosis, these patients remain at high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer. The incidence, timing, and survival of second primary lung cancers is not well understood, particularly in a patient population with initial primary lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening,” said Alexandra Potter, who is a study coauthor.

The results were presented by Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang, MD, at a press conference held at the World Conference on Lung Cancer sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Yang is a thoracic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A 2012 study analyzed data from the SEER database and found that lung cancer survivors had a four- to sixfold increase in the risk of developing a second primary lung cancer, compared with the risk of lung cancer in the general population after adjusting for sex, age, race, and calendar year. “That study demonstrated that second primary lung cancers are an important risk among lung cancer survivors. However, it did not evaluate patients diagnosed with initial lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening. Thus, the incidence, timing, characteristics, and survival of lung cancers diagnosed among patients diagnosed with initial lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening remain unknown,” said Ms. Potter, who is a research assistant at Massachusetts General Hospital and president of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative.

To address that question, the researchers used data from the National Lung Screening Trial, which compared low-dose computed tomography to chest x-ray and found that the former led to a 15%-20% lower risk of death. The new analysis included 1,405 patients who were diagnosed with stage I-III lung cancer and treated between 2002 and 2009. Of these patients, 5.8% went on to be diagnosed with a second primary lung cancer, at a rate of 1%-2% per year. Of the second lung cancers, 54.9% were synchronous, occurring within 6 months of the diagnosis, and 45.1% were metachronous, occurring later than 6 months; 65% of synchronous secondary cancers and 81% of metachronous cancers were diagnosed at stage I; 24% of synchronous and 14% of metachronous were stage III (P = .25). The median time to diagnosis of metachronous lung cancers was 2.7 years, and 27% of the second primary tumors were diagnosed 4 or more years after the first diagnosis.

Among those with synchronous tumors, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 55.2% and 39.5%. The rates were 90.0% and 30.8% among metachronous tumors, respectively. Ms. Potter emphasized that most patients with second primary cancer were diagnosed at stage I, suggesting that it is very possible to catch these cancers early. But patients who were diagnosed with a second primary tumor 4 or more years after their first diagnosis had a greater likelihood of later-stage second cancer. Medical societies generally recommend CT screening surveillance every 6 months for 2 years following a lung cancer diagnosis, then annually thereafter. The greater frequency of later-stage cancer detected after 4 years suggests that surveillance may be flagging as time goes on. “These data highlight the importance of lifelong follow up after initial lung cancer diagnosis,” said Ms. Potter.

She also emphasized the importance of smoking cessation and ongoing abstinence following a diagnosis of lung cancer. “About 70% of patients in the NLST who developed second primary lung cancer currently smoked at the time of entry into the trial. Smoking cessation can help reduce patients’ risk of developing second primary lung cancers,” she said. Ms. Potter has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study finds that patients with screen-detected lung cancer are at increased risk for a second primary lung cancer diagnosis, with about half occurring within 6 months of the first diagnosis. More than 80% of second primary cancers diagnosed within 2 years were stage 1, compared with about 25% when diagnosed more than 5 years later.

“With the growing adoption of lung cancer screening, more patients are being diagnosed with early-stage lung cancers and are able to achieve excellent long-term survival. After lung cancer diagnosis, these patients remain at high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer. The incidence, timing, and survival of second primary lung cancers is not well understood, particularly in a patient population with initial primary lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening,” said Alexandra Potter, who is a study coauthor.

The results were presented by Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang, MD, at a press conference held at the World Conference on Lung Cancer sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Yang is a thoracic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A 2012 study analyzed data from the SEER database and found that lung cancer survivors had a four- to sixfold increase in the risk of developing a second primary lung cancer, compared with the risk of lung cancer in the general population after adjusting for sex, age, race, and calendar year. “That study demonstrated that second primary lung cancers are an important risk among lung cancer survivors. However, it did not evaluate patients diagnosed with initial lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening. Thus, the incidence, timing, characteristics, and survival of lung cancers diagnosed among patients diagnosed with initial lung cancers detected via lung cancer screening remain unknown,” said Ms. Potter, who is a research assistant at Massachusetts General Hospital and president of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative.

To address that question, the researchers used data from the National Lung Screening Trial, which compared low-dose computed tomography to chest x-ray and found that the former led to a 15%-20% lower risk of death. The new analysis included 1,405 patients who were diagnosed with stage I-III lung cancer and treated between 2002 and 2009. Of these patients, 5.8% went on to be diagnosed with a second primary lung cancer, at a rate of 1%-2% per year. Of the second lung cancers, 54.9% were synchronous, occurring within 6 months of the diagnosis, and 45.1% were metachronous, occurring later than 6 months; 65% of synchronous secondary cancers and 81% of metachronous cancers were diagnosed at stage I; 24% of synchronous and 14% of metachronous were stage III (P = .25). The median time to diagnosis of metachronous lung cancers was 2.7 years, and 27% of the second primary tumors were diagnosed 4 or more years after the first diagnosis.

Among those with synchronous tumors, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 55.2% and 39.5%. The rates were 90.0% and 30.8% among metachronous tumors, respectively. Ms. Potter emphasized that most patients with second primary cancer were diagnosed at stage I, suggesting that it is very possible to catch these cancers early. But patients who were diagnosed with a second primary tumor 4 or more years after their first diagnosis had a greater likelihood of later-stage second cancer. Medical societies generally recommend CT screening surveillance every 6 months for 2 years following a lung cancer diagnosis, then annually thereafter. The greater frequency of later-stage cancer detected after 4 years suggests that surveillance may be flagging as time goes on. “These data highlight the importance of lifelong follow up after initial lung cancer diagnosis,” said Ms. Potter.

She also emphasized the importance of smoking cessation and ongoing abstinence following a diagnosis of lung cancer. “About 70% of patients in the NLST who developed second primary lung cancer currently smoked at the time of entry into the trial. Smoking cessation can help reduce patients’ risk of developing second primary lung cancers,” she said. Ms. Potter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Advances have been made in earlier diagnosis and better overall survival among older patients with lung cancer, but younger adults have not experienced the same benefit, according to a new study.

The improvements in patients aged 55-80 are likely associated with the introduction in 2013 of low dose computed tomography lung cancer screening.

“It was unknown whether young adults diagnosed with lung cancer, who are ineligible for screening, have experienced a similar shift to earlier stages of lung cancer. While previous studies have shown that young adults diagnosed with lung cancer have distinct tumor characteristics and survival compared to older adults diagnosed with lung cancer, no study has examined whether recent improvements in early diagnosis and survival among older adults with lung cancer extend to younger adults diagnosed with lung cancer,” study coauthor Alexandra Potter told this news organization.

The study was presented by Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang, MD, at a press conference held at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Yang is a thoracic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The difference might be explained by difference in tumor biology, as younger adults are often diagnosed with more aggressive cancers. Other factors include delayed diagnosis and a lack of early detection strategies for this population. Older patients likely benefited from the onset of lung cancer screening, as well as an increase in non-screening chest CT use in hospital settings, which may lead to more incidental diagnoses, according to Ms. Potter, a research assistant Massachusetts General Hospital and president of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative.

Investigators found that about three in four lung cancer diagnoses among adults aged 20-29 were stage IV disease, and only 8% in that group were stage I. “I was surprised” by the high frequency of stage IV cancer, said Ms. Potter. “I would also highlight that there has been no improvement in early diagnosis among patients aged 20-49 during the study period,” she added.

And although it is often assumed that patients diagnosed at a younger age have better survival, the study painted a grim picture: Five-year survival was 10%-15% among patients diagnosed at age 20-49 with stage IV cancer. “More research is needed to better understand the risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and survival of lung cancer in young adults,” Ms. Potter said.

There are strategies in development, including biomarkers, machine learning analysis of CT scans, and risk prediction models, but none have yet borne fruit. “Once we are able to [identify high-risk young adults], this will allow us to offer lung cancer screening to these young adults who are at high risk for developing lung cancer,” Ms. Potter said.
 

Study methodology

The researchers analyzed data from the United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) database and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). They included patients aged 20-79 diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2010 and 2018. The study included 1,328 individuals aged 20-29, 5,682 men and women aged 30-39, 39,323 individuals aged 40-49, 202,709 aged 50-59, 410,482 aged 60-69, and 447,366 aged 70-79.

Stage IV diagnoses were most common in the youngest group (76% versus 8% stage I), and steadily declined with age 30-39 (70% versus 10%), age 40-49 (60% versus 14%), 50-59 (52%versus 19%), 60-69 (45% versus 25%), and 70-79 (40% versus 25%; P < .001). The trend reversed among patients aged 80-89, with 45% of patients diagnosed with stage IV cancer, though the rising trend of stage I diagnoses continued at 29%. Between 2010 and 2018, there was a statistically significant increase in stage IV diagnoses among those aged 40-49, and a decrease among those aged 50-59, 60-69, and 70-79.

Five-year overall survival was lowest among patients aged 20-29 at 20%. It was 27%-28% among each 10-year age group up to age 69, then dropped to 24% among those aged 70-79 (P < .001).

The study was limited by a lack of data on disease-free or recurrence-free survival, as well as use of biomarkers or targeted therapy. Ms. Potter has no relevant financial disclosures. The conference was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Advances have been made in earlier diagnosis and better overall survival among older patients with lung cancer, but younger adults have not experienced the same benefit, according to a new study.

The improvements in patients aged 55-80 are likely associated with the introduction in 2013 of low dose computed tomography lung cancer screening.

“It was unknown whether young adults diagnosed with lung cancer, who are ineligible for screening, have experienced a similar shift to earlier stages of lung cancer. While previous studies have shown that young adults diagnosed with lung cancer have distinct tumor characteristics and survival compared to older adults diagnosed with lung cancer, no study has examined whether recent improvements in early diagnosis and survival among older adults with lung cancer extend to younger adults diagnosed with lung cancer,” study coauthor Alexandra Potter told this news organization.

The study was presented by Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang, MD, at a press conference held at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Yang is a thoracic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The difference might be explained by difference in tumor biology, as younger adults are often diagnosed with more aggressive cancers. Other factors include delayed diagnosis and a lack of early detection strategies for this population. Older patients likely benefited from the onset of lung cancer screening, as well as an increase in non-screening chest CT use in hospital settings, which may lead to more incidental diagnoses, according to Ms. Potter, a research assistant Massachusetts General Hospital and president of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative.

Investigators found that about three in four lung cancer diagnoses among adults aged 20-29 were stage IV disease, and only 8% in that group were stage I. “I was surprised” by the high frequency of stage IV cancer, said Ms. Potter. “I would also highlight that there has been no improvement in early diagnosis among patients aged 20-49 during the study period,” she added.

And although it is often assumed that patients diagnosed at a younger age have better survival, the study painted a grim picture: Five-year survival was 10%-15% among patients diagnosed at age 20-49 with stage IV cancer. “More research is needed to better understand the risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and survival of lung cancer in young adults,” Ms. Potter said.

There are strategies in development, including biomarkers, machine learning analysis of CT scans, and risk prediction models, but none have yet borne fruit. “Once we are able to [identify high-risk young adults], this will allow us to offer lung cancer screening to these young adults who are at high risk for developing lung cancer,” Ms. Potter said.
 

Study methodology

The researchers analyzed data from the United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) database and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). They included patients aged 20-79 diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2010 and 2018. The study included 1,328 individuals aged 20-29, 5,682 men and women aged 30-39, 39,323 individuals aged 40-49, 202,709 aged 50-59, 410,482 aged 60-69, and 447,366 aged 70-79.

Stage IV diagnoses were most common in the youngest group (76% versus 8% stage I), and steadily declined with age 30-39 (70% versus 10%), age 40-49 (60% versus 14%), 50-59 (52%versus 19%), 60-69 (45% versus 25%), and 70-79 (40% versus 25%; P < .001). The trend reversed among patients aged 80-89, with 45% of patients diagnosed with stage IV cancer, though the rising trend of stage I diagnoses continued at 29%. Between 2010 and 2018, there was a statistically significant increase in stage IV diagnoses among those aged 40-49, and a decrease among those aged 50-59, 60-69, and 70-79.

Five-year overall survival was lowest among patients aged 20-29 at 20%. It was 27%-28% among each 10-year age group up to age 69, then dropped to 24% among those aged 70-79 (P < .001).

The study was limited by a lack of data on disease-free or recurrence-free survival, as well as use of biomarkers or targeted therapy. Ms. Potter has no relevant financial disclosures. The conference was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Advances have been made in earlier diagnosis and better overall survival among older patients with lung cancer, but younger adults have not experienced the same benefit, according to a new study.

The improvements in patients aged 55-80 are likely associated with the introduction in 2013 of low dose computed tomography lung cancer screening.

“It was unknown whether young adults diagnosed with lung cancer, who are ineligible for screening, have experienced a similar shift to earlier stages of lung cancer. While previous studies have shown that young adults diagnosed with lung cancer have distinct tumor characteristics and survival compared to older adults diagnosed with lung cancer, no study has examined whether recent improvements in early diagnosis and survival among older adults with lung cancer extend to younger adults diagnosed with lung cancer,” study coauthor Alexandra Potter told this news organization.

The study was presented by Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang, MD, at a press conference held at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Yang is a thoracic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The difference might be explained by difference in tumor biology, as younger adults are often diagnosed with more aggressive cancers. Other factors include delayed diagnosis and a lack of early detection strategies for this population. Older patients likely benefited from the onset of lung cancer screening, as well as an increase in non-screening chest CT use in hospital settings, which may lead to more incidental diagnoses, according to Ms. Potter, a research assistant Massachusetts General Hospital and president of the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative.

Investigators found that about three in four lung cancer diagnoses among adults aged 20-29 were stage IV disease, and only 8% in that group were stage I. “I was surprised” by the high frequency of stage IV cancer, said Ms. Potter. “I would also highlight that there has been no improvement in early diagnosis among patients aged 20-49 during the study period,” she added.

And although it is often assumed that patients diagnosed at a younger age have better survival, the study painted a grim picture: Five-year survival was 10%-15% among patients diagnosed at age 20-49 with stage IV cancer. “More research is needed to better understand the risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and survival of lung cancer in young adults,” Ms. Potter said.

There are strategies in development, including biomarkers, machine learning analysis of CT scans, and risk prediction models, but none have yet borne fruit. “Once we are able to [identify high-risk young adults], this will allow us to offer lung cancer screening to these young adults who are at high risk for developing lung cancer,” Ms. Potter said.
 

Study methodology

The researchers analyzed data from the United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) database and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). They included patients aged 20-79 diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2010 and 2018. The study included 1,328 individuals aged 20-29, 5,682 men and women aged 30-39, 39,323 individuals aged 40-49, 202,709 aged 50-59, 410,482 aged 60-69, and 447,366 aged 70-79.

Stage IV diagnoses were most common in the youngest group (76% versus 8% stage I), and steadily declined with age 30-39 (70% versus 10%), age 40-49 (60% versus 14%), 50-59 (52%versus 19%), 60-69 (45% versus 25%), and 70-79 (40% versus 25%; P < .001). The trend reversed among patients aged 80-89, with 45% of patients diagnosed with stage IV cancer, though the rising trend of stage I diagnoses continued at 29%. Between 2010 and 2018, there was a statistically significant increase in stage IV diagnoses among those aged 40-49, and a decrease among those aged 50-59, 60-69, and 70-79.

Five-year overall survival was lowest among patients aged 20-29 at 20%. It was 27%-28% among each 10-year age group up to age 69, then dropped to 24% among those aged 70-79 (P < .001).

The study was limited by a lack of data on disease-free or recurrence-free survival, as well as use of biomarkers or targeted therapy. Ms. Potter has no relevant financial disclosures. The conference was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

There is a growing body of evidence to show that air pollution is a major risk factor for lung cancer among never-smokers, although there is less certainty about the duration of exposure to fine particulate matter in ambient air as it relates to risk for lung cancer.

But as Canadian researchers now report, even 20 years of data on cumulative exposure to air pollution may underestimate the magnitude of the effect, especially among people diagnosed with lung cancer who have migrated from regions where heavy air pollution is the norm.

In a study of Canadian women with newly diagnosed lung cancer who never smoked, Renelle Myers, MD, FRCPC, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and colleagues found that shorter-term assessment of cumulative exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) may underestimate the health effects of chronic exposure to pollution, especially among those patients who had migrated to Canada after living in areas of high PM2.5 exposure for long periods of time.

“Our study points to the importance of incorporating this long-term cumulative exposure to air pollutants in the assessment of individual lung cancer risk, of course in combination with traditional risk factors, and depending on the country of residence, I think that even a 20-year cumulative exposure may underestimate the effects of PM2.5, as we’re not capturing childhood or adolescent exposure when the lung is developing, and what effect that will have,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
 

Satellite data on local pollution

With the objective of comparing cumulative 3-year vs. 20-year exposure to PM2.5 in women who had never smoked and had a new diagnosis of lung cancer, Dr. Myers and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study.

They recruited a total of 236 women and had them fill out a detailed residential history questionnaire, and demographic details including age, race, country of birth, arrival in Canada for those born out of the country, occupations, family history of lung cancer, and exposure to second-hand smoke.

The investigators linked local addresses or postal to satellite-derived data on local PM2.5 levels, which first became available in 1996.

[embed:render:related:node:252333]

The median age of participants was 66.1 years. Of the 236 participants, 190 (80.5%) were born outside of Canada, and came to the country at the median age of 45. About half of all participants came from mainland China or Hong Kong, and another one-third came from elsewhere in Asia.

Tumor histologies included adenocarcinomas in 219 patients, squamous cell carcinoma in 1, and other types in 16 patients. Slightly more than half of the patients (55.%) had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In all, 106 of 227 evaluable patients had EGFR mutations.

3 years not enough

Among the foreign-born patients, only 4 (2%) had 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³, but 38 (20%) had 20-year cumulative exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³ (P < .0001).

All of the patients had cumulative PM2.5 exposures greater than 5 mcg/m³.

Comparing patients with and without EGFR mutations, the investigators found that higher 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure was significantly associated with EGFR mutations compared with nonmutated cancers (P = .049), but there was no significant association with higher 20-year cumulative exposures.

“The significance of this study really captures that short term or at least less than 3-year cumulative exposure risk for PM2.5 will probably underestimate the adverse effects that chronic exposure to air pollution has, especially among patients who lived elsewhere that may have had higher exposure throughout their lifetime than where you actually meet them,” Dr. Myers said in a media briefing held prior to her presentation.
 

Lung cancer in female nonsmokers

During the oral abstract session, invited discussant Chang-Chuan Chan, ScD, National Taiwan University, Taipei, said that the study’s focus on female patients with lung cancer is important. He pointed to a 2019 study examining the relationship between air pollution and lung cancer among nonsmokers in Taiwan, in which the authors found that, although smoking levels among women remained low over time (about 5%), the incidence of lung adenocarcinomas among women increased from 7.05 per 100,000 in 1995, to 24.22 per 100,000 in 2015.

The authors of that study also found that changes in PM2.5 levels in Taiwan were predictive of fluctuations in lung cancer prevalence in never-smokers.

“We’re moving from 50-year studies of smoking to these new issues of air pollution, asbestos, and radon, and I think it’s better that these three factors can be combined together,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The study was supported by the BC Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox Research Institute, and VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation. Dr. Myers and Dr. Chan reported having no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

There is a growing body of evidence to show that air pollution is a major risk factor for lung cancer among never-smokers, although there is less certainty about the duration of exposure to fine particulate matter in ambient air as it relates to risk for lung cancer.

But as Canadian researchers now report, even 20 years of data on cumulative exposure to air pollution may underestimate the magnitude of the effect, especially among people diagnosed with lung cancer who have migrated from regions where heavy air pollution is the norm.

In a study of Canadian women with newly diagnosed lung cancer who never smoked, Renelle Myers, MD, FRCPC, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and colleagues found that shorter-term assessment of cumulative exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) may underestimate the health effects of chronic exposure to pollution, especially among those patients who had migrated to Canada after living in areas of high PM2.5 exposure for long periods of time.

“Our study points to the importance of incorporating this long-term cumulative exposure to air pollutants in the assessment of individual lung cancer risk, of course in combination with traditional risk factors, and depending on the country of residence, I think that even a 20-year cumulative exposure may underestimate the effects of PM2.5, as we’re not capturing childhood or adolescent exposure when the lung is developing, and what effect that will have,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
 

Satellite data on local pollution

With the objective of comparing cumulative 3-year vs. 20-year exposure to PM2.5 in women who had never smoked and had a new diagnosis of lung cancer, Dr. Myers and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study.

They recruited a total of 236 women and had them fill out a detailed residential history questionnaire, and demographic details including age, race, country of birth, arrival in Canada for those born out of the country, occupations, family history of lung cancer, and exposure to second-hand smoke.

The investigators linked local addresses or postal to satellite-derived data on local PM2.5 levels, which first became available in 1996.

[embed:render:related:node:252333]

The median age of participants was 66.1 years. Of the 236 participants, 190 (80.5%) were born outside of Canada, and came to the country at the median age of 45. About half of all participants came from mainland China or Hong Kong, and another one-third came from elsewhere in Asia.

Tumor histologies included adenocarcinomas in 219 patients, squamous cell carcinoma in 1, and other types in 16 patients. Slightly more than half of the patients (55.%) had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In all, 106 of 227 evaluable patients had EGFR mutations.

3 years not enough

Among the foreign-born patients, only 4 (2%) had 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³, but 38 (20%) had 20-year cumulative exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³ (P < .0001).

All of the patients had cumulative PM2.5 exposures greater than 5 mcg/m³.

Comparing patients with and without EGFR mutations, the investigators found that higher 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure was significantly associated with EGFR mutations compared with nonmutated cancers (P = .049), but there was no significant association with higher 20-year cumulative exposures.

“The significance of this study really captures that short term or at least less than 3-year cumulative exposure risk for PM2.5 will probably underestimate the adverse effects that chronic exposure to air pollution has, especially among patients who lived elsewhere that may have had higher exposure throughout their lifetime than where you actually meet them,” Dr. Myers said in a media briefing held prior to her presentation.
 

Lung cancer in female nonsmokers

During the oral abstract session, invited discussant Chang-Chuan Chan, ScD, National Taiwan University, Taipei, said that the study’s focus on female patients with lung cancer is important. He pointed to a 2019 study examining the relationship between air pollution and lung cancer among nonsmokers in Taiwan, in which the authors found that, although smoking levels among women remained low over time (about 5%), the incidence of lung adenocarcinomas among women increased from 7.05 per 100,000 in 1995, to 24.22 per 100,000 in 2015.

The authors of that study also found that changes in PM2.5 levels in Taiwan were predictive of fluctuations in lung cancer prevalence in never-smokers.

“We’re moving from 50-year studies of smoking to these new issues of air pollution, asbestos, and radon, and I think it’s better that these three factors can be combined together,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The study was supported by the BC Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox Research Institute, and VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation. Dr. Myers and Dr. Chan reported having no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

There is a growing body of evidence to show that air pollution is a major risk factor for lung cancer among never-smokers, although there is less certainty about the duration of exposure to fine particulate matter in ambient air as it relates to risk for lung cancer.

But as Canadian researchers now report, even 20 years of data on cumulative exposure to air pollution may underestimate the magnitude of the effect, especially among people diagnosed with lung cancer who have migrated from regions where heavy air pollution is the norm.

In a study of Canadian women with newly diagnosed lung cancer who never smoked, Renelle Myers, MD, FRCPC, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and colleagues found that shorter-term assessment of cumulative exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) may underestimate the health effects of chronic exposure to pollution, especially among those patients who had migrated to Canada after living in areas of high PM2.5 exposure for long periods of time.

“Our study points to the importance of incorporating this long-term cumulative exposure to air pollutants in the assessment of individual lung cancer risk, of course in combination with traditional risk factors, and depending on the country of residence, I think that even a 20-year cumulative exposure may underestimate the effects of PM2.5, as we’re not capturing childhood or adolescent exposure when the lung is developing, and what effect that will have,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
 

Satellite data on local pollution

With the objective of comparing cumulative 3-year vs. 20-year exposure to PM2.5 in women who had never smoked and had a new diagnosis of lung cancer, Dr. Myers and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study.

They recruited a total of 236 women and had them fill out a detailed residential history questionnaire, and demographic details including age, race, country of birth, arrival in Canada for those born out of the country, occupations, family history of lung cancer, and exposure to second-hand smoke.

The investigators linked local addresses or postal to satellite-derived data on local PM2.5 levels, which first became available in 1996.

[embed:render:related:node:252333]

The median age of participants was 66.1 years. Of the 236 participants, 190 (80.5%) were born outside of Canada, and came to the country at the median age of 45. About half of all participants came from mainland China or Hong Kong, and another one-third came from elsewhere in Asia.

Tumor histologies included adenocarcinomas in 219 patients, squamous cell carcinoma in 1, and other types in 16 patients. Slightly more than half of the patients (55.%) had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In all, 106 of 227 evaluable patients had EGFR mutations.

3 years not enough

Among the foreign-born patients, only 4 (2%) had 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³, but 38 (20%) had 20-year cumulative exposure greater than 10 mcg/m³ (P < .0001).

All of the patients had cumulative PM2.5 exposures greater than 5 mcg/m³.

Comparing patients with and without EGFR mutations, the investigators found that higher 3-year cumulative PM2.5 exposure was significantly associated with EGFR mutations compared with nonmutated cancers (P = .049), but there was no significant association with higher 20-year cumulative exposures.

“The significance of this study really captures that short term or at least less than 3-year cumulative exposure risk for PM2.5 will probably underestimate the adverse effects that chronic exposure to air pollution has, especially among patients who lived elsewhere that may have had higher exposure throughout their lifetime than where you actually meet them,” Dr. Myers said in a media briefing held prior to her presentation.
 

Lung cancer in female nonsmokers

During the oral abstract session, invited discussant Chang-Chuan Chan, ScD, National Taiwan University, Taipei, said that the study’s focus on female patients with lung cancer is important. He pointed to a 2019 study examining the relationship between air pollution and lung cancer among nonsmokers in Taiwan, in which the authors found that, although smoking levels among women remained low over time (about 5%), the incidence of lung adenocarcinomas among women increased from 7.05 per 100,000 in 1995, to 24.22 per 100,000 in 2015.

The authors of that study also found that changes in PM2.5 levels in Taiwan were predictive of fluctuations in lung cancer prevalence in never-smokers.

“We’re moving from 50-year studies of smoking to these new issues of air pollution, asbestos, and radon, and I think it’s better that these three factors can be combined together,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The study was supported by the BC Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox Research Institute, and VGH-UBC Hospital Foundation. Dr. Myers and Dr. Chan reported having no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.