ObjectivesLung cancer screening programmes offer an opportunity to address tobacco dependence in current smokers. The effectiveness of different approaches to smoking cessation in this context has not yet been established. We investigated if immediate smoking cessation support, including pharmacotherapy, offered as part of a lung cancer screening programme, increases quit rates compared to usual care (Very Brief Advice to quit and signposting to smoking cessation services).Materials and methodsWe conducted a single-blind randomised controlled trial of current smokers aged 55–75 years attending a Targeted Lung Health Check. On randomly allocated days smokers received either (1) immediate support from a trained smoking cessation counsellor with appropriate pharmacotherapy or (2) usual care. The primary outcome was self-reported quit rate at 3 months. We performed thematic analysis of participant interview responses.ResultsOf 412 people attending between January and March 2020, 115 (27.9%) were current smokers; 46% female, mean (SD) 62.4 (5.3) years. Follow-up data were available for 84 smokers. At 3 months, quit rates in the intervention group were higher 14/48 (29.2%) vs 4/36 (11%) (χ2 3.98, p=0.04). Participant interviews revealed four smoking-cessation related themes: (1) stress and anxiety, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, (3) CT scans influencing desire to quit and (4) individual beliefs about stopping smoking.ConclusionThe provision of immediate smoking cessation support is associated with a substantial increase in quit rates at 3 months. Further research is needed to investigate longer-term outcomes and to refine future service delivery.Trial registration numberISRCTN12455871.

No abstract

BackgroundLung cancer screening programs provide an opportunity to support smokers to quit, but the most appropriate model for delivery remains to be determined. Immediate face to face smoking cessation support for people undergoing screening can increase quit rates, but it is not known whether remote delivery of immediate smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy in this context is also effective.Materials and MethodsIn a single-blind randomised controlled trial, smokers aged 55-75 years attending a Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) were allocated by day of attendance to receive either immediate telephone smoking cessation support (TSI) (starting immediately and lasting for 6 weeks) with appropriate pharmacotherapy, or usual care (very brief advice to quit and signposting to smoking cessation services) (UC). The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at three months. Differences between groups were assessed using logistic regression.Results315 current smokers taking part in the screening programme, mean (SD) age 63(5.4) years, 48% female, were randomised to telephone smoking cessation (n=152) or usual care (n=163). The two groups were well-matched at baseline. Self-reported quit rates were higher in the intervention arm, 21.1% vs 8.9% (odds ratio [OR]: 2.83, 95% CI 1.44-5.61, p=0.002). Controlling for participant demographics, baseline smoking characteristics or the discovery of abnormalities on low dose CT scanning did not modify the effect of the intervention.ConclusionImmediate provision of an intensive telephone-based smoking cessation intervention, delivered within a targeted lung screening context, is associated with increased smoking abstinence at three months.Trial registrationThis study is registered online: ISRCTN12455871.Take home messageProviding immediate, telephone smoking cessation support with pharmacotherapy to smokers enrolled in a TLHC program increases quit rates in this population by almost a third.

Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a “lung health check” (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.

No abstract