Biochemical verification of the self-reported smoking status of screened male smokers of the Dutch-Belgian randomized controlled lung cancer screening trial

Lung Cancer

Volumn 94, Issue , 2016, Pages 96-101

  van der Aalst, Carlijn M ^a   de Koning, Harry J ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biochemical validation; Lung cancer; Screening; Self report; Smoking

Indexed keywords

COTININE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BELGIAN; BIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS; BLOOD SAMPLING; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DUTCHMAN; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; NICOTINE REPLACEMENT THERAPY; PASSIVE SMOKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; VALIDATION PROCESS; VALIDITY; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; BELGIUM; HEALTH SURVEY; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; SEX DIFFERENCE;

AGED; BELGIUM; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; SELF REPORT; SEX FACTORS; SMOKING;

EID: 84960411638     PISSN: 01695002     EISSN: 18728332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. WHO, WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008; The MPOWER package. 2008, World Health Organization : Geneva.
2. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015, 65(1):5-29.
3. Ferlay J., et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 136(5):E359-86.
4. Arnold M.et al. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European cancer observatory. Eur. J. Cancer 2013.
5. National Center for Chronic Disease, P., S. Health Promotion Office on, and Health, The Health Consequences of Smoking-50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2014: Atlanta.
6. Burns D.M. Primary prevention, smoking, and smoking cessation: implications for future trends in lung cancer prevention. Cancer 2000, 89(Suppl. 11):2506-2509.
7. Henschke C.I., Yankelevitz D.F., Libby D.M., Pasmantier M.W., Smith J.P., Miettinen O.S. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355(17):1763-1771.
8. K.F., Wellmann, [Smoking and Health. on the Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.] Rauchen Und Gesundheit. Zum Bericht Des Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Dtsch Med Wochenschr, (1964) 89: p. 1085-6.
9. Moyer V.A., Force U.S.P.S.T. Screening for lung cancer: U.S preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014, 160(5):330-338.
10. Ashraf H.et al. Smoking habits were unaffected by CT screening at 1-year follow-up in the danish lung cancer screening trial (DLCST). Thorax 2008.
11. Studts J.L., et al. Validity of self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung cancer screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15(10):1825-1828.
12. Cox L.S., et al. Change in smoking status after spiral chest computed tomography scan screening. Cancer 2003, 98(11):2495-2501.
13. Van Iersel C.A., De Koning H.J., Draisma G., Mali W.P., Scholten E.T., Nackaerts K., Prokop M., Habbema J.D., Oudkerk M., Van Klaveren R.J. Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON). Int. J. Cancer 2007, 120(4):868-874.
14. Polit D.F., Beck C.T. Nursing Research, Principles and Methods 2003, Lippincott Williams & Wilkens, Philadelphia. 7th ed.
15. Berger M.P.F., Imbos Tj., Janssen M.P.E. Methodologie En Statistiek 2 [Methodology and Statistic 2] 2000, University of Maastricht, Faculty of Health Care Sciences, Maastricht.
16. Van Klaveren R.J., De Koning H.J., Mulshine J., Hirsch F.R. Lung cancer screening by spiral CT. What is the optimal target population for screening trials?. Lung Cancer 2002, 38(3):243-252.
17. Kenkel D., Lillard D.R., Mathios A. Smoke or fog? The usefulness of retrospectively reported information about smoking. Addiction 2003, 98(9):1307-1313.
18. Murray R.P., Connett J.E., Lauger G.G., Voelker H.T. Error in smoking measures: effects of intervention on relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking. Am. J. Public Health 1993, 83:1251-1257.
19. A.N. Mudde, M.C. Willemsen, S. Kremers, H. de Vries, Measuring instruments for research regarding smoking and smoking cessation [Meetinstrumenten voor onderzoek naar stoppen met roken]. 2006.
20. Willemsen M., Hoogenveen R.T., Van der Lucht F. Tobacco and Alcohol: new smokers and quitters. Transitions in smoking status in a national population. Eur. J. Public Health 2002, 12(2):136-138.
21. Connor Gorber S., et al. The accuracy of self-reported smoking: a systematic review of the relationship between self-reported and cotinine-assessed smoking status. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2009, 11(1):12-24.
22. Benowitz N.L., et al. Optimal serum cotinine levels for distinguishing cigarette smokers and nonsmokers within different racial/ethnic groups in the United States between 1999 and 2004. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009, 169(2):236-248.
23. Bramer S.L., Kallungal B.A. Clinical considerations in study designs that use cotinine as a biomarker. Biomarkers 2003, 8(3-4):187--203.