Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42734913›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions Integrated Into Lung Cancer Screening.

Pianpian Cao, Laney Smith, Emma Tian, Lou-Anne Chichester, Elizabeth Schofield, Randi M Williams, Rafael Meza, Benjamin A Toll, Jamie Ostroff, Elena B Elkin and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Pianpian CaoDepartment of Public Health, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Laney SmithWhiddon College of Medicine at the University of South Alabama, Mobile.
Emma TianDivision of Intramural Research at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Lou-Anne ChichesterDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Elizabeth SchofieldDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Randi M WilliamsCancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Rafael MezaDepartment of Population Health Sciences, British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Benjamin A TollDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Jamie OstroffDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Elena B ElkinDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York.
Steven S FuVeterans Affairs Health Systems Research Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Health Administration Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Stephanie R LandTobacco Control Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Kathryn L TaylorCancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Jinani JayasekeraDivision of Intramural Research at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: National-level data are limited on the long-term costs and outcomes of integrating smoking cessation interventions into lung cancer screening (LCS) programs in the US. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in LCS using data from 4 randomized clinical trials implemented within the National Cancer Institute's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, data were pooled from individuals enrolled across 23 arms in 4 SCALE trials from October 2016 to April 2023. Included participants were eligible for LCS and currently smoked. Data were analyzed from May 2025 to June 2026. Exposures: LCS with and without cessation interventions. The 23 arms were classified into 8 composite treatment classes based on low, moderate, and high intensities of pharmacotherapy and counseling. Main Outcomes and Measures: From a societal perspective, cost per quit was estimated during trial follow-up periods and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a lifetime horizon. Intervention costs were micro-costed at steady state. Trial data were extended to a lifetime horizon using an established lung cancer microsimulation model. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested the estimated effects of varying quit rates, costs, background cessation rates, relapse, and screening uptake and adherence. Results: Of 2520 participants (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [5.8] years), 1278 (50.7%) were male. Mean (range) treatment class costs varied from $38.96 ($2.43-$57.45) to $803.10 ($563.18-$1212.73) per participant, with self-reported quit rates ranging from a mean (range) of 10.1% (8.0%-13.0%) to 27.3% (19.5%-31.4%). The lowest-intensity treatment class had the lowest cost per quit at $329.85, whereas the highest-intensity treatment class had the highest at $2945.35. Model projections suggested that the high-intensity pharmacotherapy and low-intensity counseling treatment class yielded the lowest lifetime costs ($1.54 billion per 100 000 screen-eligible population) and the second-highest QALYs (2.26 billion years per 100 000 screen-eligible population). The highest-intensity treatment class achieved the highest QALYs, at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $991.15 per QALY. Compared with screening alone, joint cessation and screening programs were cost-saving. Results were robust across sensitivity analysis scenarios. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of integrating smoking cessation interventions in LCS, joint cessation and screening programs were associated with substantial health benefits and favorable cost-effectiveness. These findings may be useful for health systems to guide decisions, while considering budget and capacity, on the modality and intensity of cessation interventions to adopt.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsSmoking CessationAgedCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42734913
PMCPMC13576415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.