Kathryn L Taylor

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose CT is recommended for high-risk individuals, screening adherence remains low. We conducted a randomized trial to compare two methods of providing LCS education to Maryland Tobacco Quitline (MTQ) callers in order to assess whether this setting may serve as a teachable moment for LCS-eligible individuals. MTQ callers (50–80 years, 20+ pack-years, prior LCS ≥12 months) completed the baseline and were randomized to the Print- or Web-based version of ShouldIScreen.com. Participants completed 1- and 4-month follow-up assessments to evaluate intervention engagement and LCS-related outcomes. Participants (Print = 152, Web = 146) were 61.7 (SD = 6.3) years old and reported 63.5 pack-years (SD = 36.0). Most identified as Black (54.2%), female (66.1%), having internet access (78.9%), completing other recommended cancer screenings (86.3%), and that they would undergo LCS if recommended by their provider (91.3%). By 4 months, significantly more Print (75.0%) than Web (61.6%) participants had read the materials (P = .01). Most reported the interventions contained “the right amount” of information (92.6%) and prepared them to talk with their doctor (57.2%). Regarding screening-related outcomes, 42.8% (Print) and 43.8% (Web) had scheduled or completed a low-dose CT scan or a shared decision-making visit (P = .86). In a racially diverse sample of LCS-eligible quitline callers, offering LCS educational materials resulted in high intervention engagement and screening-related appointments. As >20% did not have internet access, providing participants’ preferred modality (web/print) may improve intervention engagement and knowledge. Improving LCS awareness represents an important opportunity to increase screening among eligible but unscreened quitline callers.

Background There are limited data on the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening settings. We conducted an economic analysis embedded in a national randomized trial of 2 telephone counseling cessation interventions. Methods We used a societal perspective to compare the short-term cost per 6-month bio-verified quit and long-term cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Trial data were used to micro-cost intervention delivery, and the data were extended to a lifetime horizon using an established Cancer Intervention Surveillance and Modeling Network lung cancer model. We modeled the impact of screening accompanied by 8 weeks vs 3 weeks of telephone counseling (plus nicotine replacement) vs screening alone based on 2021 screening eligibility. Lifetime downstream costs (2021 dollars) and effects (life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) saved were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested the effects of varying quit rates and costs; all analyses assumed nonrelapse after quitting. Results The costs for delivery of the 8-week vs 3-week protocol were $380.23 vs $144.93 per person, and quit rates were 7.14% vs 5.96%, respectively. The least costly strategy was a 3-week counseling approach. An 8-week (vs 3-week) counseling approach increased costs but gained QALYs for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4029 per QALY. Screening alone cost more and saved fewer QALYs than either counseling strategy. Conclusions were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Telephone-based cessation interventions with nicotine replacement are considered cost-effective in the lung screening setting. Integrating smoking cessation interventions with lung screening programs has the potential to maximize long-term health benefits at reasonable costs.