Validity of Self-reported Smoking Status among Participants in a Lung Cancer Screening Trial

  1. Jamie L. Studts1,2,
  2. Sameer R. Ghate2,
  3. Jaime L. Gill2,
  4. Christina R. Studts2,3,4,
  5. Christopher N. Barnes2,3,
  6. A. Scott LaJoie2,5,
  7. Michael A. Andrykowski6 and
  8. Renato V. LaRocca7
  1. 1Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine; 2Behavioral Oncology Program, James Graham Brown Cancer Center; 3Department of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville School of Public Health and Information Sciences; 4Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville; 5Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, University of Louisville School of Public Health and Information Sciences; 6Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine; and 7Kentuckiana Cancer Institute, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky
  1. Requests for reprints:
    Jamie L. Studts, Behavioral Oncology Program, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, Room 422, 529 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY 40202. Phone: 502-852-8094; Fax: 502-562-4368. E-mail: jamie.studts{at}louisville.edu

Abstract

Lung cancer remains a devastating disease associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Recent research has suggested that lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography scans might reduce lung cancer mortality. Studies of lung cancer screening have also suggested that significant numbers of participants quit smoking after screening. However, most have relied solely on self-reported smoking behavior, which may be less accurate among participants in lung cancer screening. To assess the validity of self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung cancer screening trial, this study compared self-reported smoking status against urinary cotinine levels. The sample included 55 consecutive participants enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing annual spiral computed tomography and chest X-ray for lung cancer screening. Participants were a mean of 59 years of age and predominantly Caucasian (96%) and male (55%). Self-reported smoking status was assessed before and after participants learned of the purpose of the biochemical verification study. Using urinary cotinine as the “gold standard,” the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported smoking status were 91% and 95%, respectively (κ = 0.85, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-0.99). Total misclassification rate was 7%. However, three of the four misclassified participants reported concurrent use of nicotine replacement strategies. Eliminating these cases from the analysis revealed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 95% (κ = 0.96, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-1.00). In conclusion, self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung cancer screening trial was highly consistent with urinary cotinine test results. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1825–8)

Footnotes

  • Grant support: Kentucky Lung Cancer Research Board.

  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

  • Note: These data have been previously presented at the 2006 American Society of Preventive Oncology meeting in Bethesda, Maryland.

    • Accepted August 8, 2006.
    • Received May 17, 2006.
    • Revision received July 27, 2006.
« Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents