4.0 Article

A combined smoking cessation intervention within a lung cancer screening trial: a pilot observational study

期刊

TUMORI JOURNAL
卷 101, 期 3, 页码 306-311

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000282

关键词

Lung cancer screening; Primary prevention; Smoking cessation

类别

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health
  2. AIRC grant [10068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims and Background: The time of lung cancer screening may provide the ideal setting to discuss and initiate a smoking cessation plan that includes pharmacologic aids. No studies to date have fully investigated the potential effectiveness of such combined approach. Methods: We prospectively evaluated the biochemically verified 1-year continuous abstinence rate from smoking of 187 persistent smokers enrolled within the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection Trial (MILD), who received a pharmacologic aid to quit smoking with varenicline along with behavioral counseling. The propensity of study subjects to succeed in smoking cessation was also monitored. Results: At 12 months, the continuous abstinence rate from smoking was achieved in 37 out of 187 patients (19.8%), with a propensity to succeed in smoking cessation for the assisted attempt equal to 1.43, as compared to an unassisted MILD patient. At the end of the third month of therapy, 48.7% of subjects showed a continuous abstinence rate, while only 33.7% of patients were abstinent from smoking at 6 months. At baseline, the subgroup of MILD participants who were originally allocated to lung tomography showed higher smoking intensity than those allocated to no screening. Conclusions: A combined smoking cessation intervention can be implemented with satisfactory results within a lung cancer screening program; this preliminary observation needs to be replicated in a prospective investigation. Clinicians should consider that lung cancer screening may be falsely reassuring for persistent smokers; therefore it should always be coupled with a smoking cessation program.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据