A smoking cessation and pain management program for cancer survivors

Cigarette Smoking and Symptom Burden: Baseline Results From Nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Clinical Trials

CONTEXT

Approximately 11% of cancer survivors smoke postdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

Understanding the relationship between smoking and perceived cancer-related symptoms may inform tobacco treatment interventions for this population.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2021, 740 adults in 9 ECOG-ACRIN trials provided baseline data. The effects of smoking status on symptoms were evaluated using logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, race, performance status, treatment setting, and anxiety. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the prevalence of patients reporting that smoking helps/worsens each symptom by smoking status (current vs. former).

RESULTS

Among participants (mean age = 58.8, 93.9% white, 30.3% female, most common cancer types: leukemia [35.5%], lymphoma [19.1%], and prostate [17.7%]), smoking statuses were: 81 current (10.9%), 257 former (34.7%), and 402 (54.3%) never. Patients currently smoking were more likely to experience cough compared to those who formerly (OR = 3.25, P < .0001) or never (OR = 3.70, P < .0001) smoked. Current smoking was associated with greater severity of cough and pain and greater pain interference compared to former and never smoking (OR's > 2.26, P's < .005). Patients currently smoking were more likely to report that smoking helps with nausea (29.4% vs. 1.3%, P < .0001), insomnia (16.4% vs. 0.6%, P < .0001), and pain (16.1% vs. 2.8%, P = .002) compared to those who formerly smoked.

CONCLUSION

Patients currently smoking report greater severity of cancer-related symptoms (i.e., cough, pain) yet were also more likely to believe that smoking helps with nausea, insomnia, and pain. Symptom management should include tobacco cessation, education on smoking and its relationship to symptoms, and strategies to reduce reliance on smoking for symptom relief.

Tobacco Cessation Interventions in Non-Respiratory Cancers: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Considering the high rates of persistent tobacco use, effective cessation interventions are needed for cancer patients and caregivers. Despite the need, there is a significant lack of research on tobacco cessation, especially for non-respiratory cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and bladder cancer).

PURPOSE

The objective was to evaluate tobacco use and tobacco cessation interventions among patients and caregivers for non-respiratory cancers.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions were identified. Five electronic databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through July 2023. Studies exclusive to lung, oral, thoracic, and head and neck cancers were excluded. Effect sizes were estimated; risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3,304 studies, 17 were included. Interventions included behavioral (n = 6), pharmacotherapy (n = 2), and a combination (n = 9) treatment. Eight studies included a health behavior model; mean behavioral change techniques were 5.57. Pooled magnitude of the odds of cessation was positive and significant (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [Lower Limit 1.02, Upper Limit 1.51]) relative to usual care/placebo. Cumulative meta-analysis examined the accumulation of results over-time and demonstrated that studies have been significant since 2020. Two studies included caregivers' who were involved in the provision of social support.

CONCLUSIONS

Current interventions have the potential to reduce tobacco use in non-respiratory cancers. Results may be beneficial for promoting tobacco cessation among non-respiratory cancers. There is a considerable lack of dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers; researchers are encouraged to explore dyadic approaches.

Association of smoking history on health-related quality of life in patients undergoing radical cystecomy

PURPOSE

Radical cystectomy (RC) has the potential to impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Many patients who undergo RC are current or former smokers. To better inform preoperative patient counseling, we examined the association between smoking status and HRQOL after RC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A secondary analysis was performed on a prospective, longitudinal study (2008-2014) examining HRQOL in patients undergoing RC for bladder cancer. We analyzed 12 validated patient-reported outcome measures that focused on functional, symptomatic, psychosocial, and global HRQOL domains. Measures were collected pre-operatively and 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-months postoperatively. For each HRQOL domain, we estimated the mean domain scores using a generalized estimation equation linear regression model. Each model included survey time, smoking status, and time-smoking interaction as covariates. Pairwise comparisons of current, former, and never smokers were estimated from the models.

RESULTS

Of the 411 patients available for analysis, 29% (n = 119) never smoked, 59% (n = 244) were former smokers, and 12% (n = 48) were current smokers. Over the follow-up period, never smokers compared to current smokers had better global QOL scores (mean difference = +8.9; 95% CI 1.3-16; p = 0.023) and lower pain levels (mean difference = -10; 95% CI -19 to -0.54; p = 0.036). Compared to current smokers, former smokers had marginal improvements in global QOL (+6.9 points) and pain (-7.5 points) during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Current smokers reported worse HRQOL recovery in the 24-months after RC. These findings can be used to counsel patients who smoke on recovery expectations.

The impact of motivational interviewing on behavioural change and health outcomes in cancer patients and survivors. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients and survivors commonly have poorer health behaviours and subsequent outcomes, often as a result of negative impacts of diagnosis and treatment. Motivational interviewing is reported to be an effective psychological tool to produce a shift in one's behaviour resulting in improved outcomes. However, there is a lack of analyses investigating this tool's impact on healthy behaviours and health outcomes in cancer populations.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of motivational interviewing on behaviours and health outcomes in cancer populations.

METHODS

The studies were identified from four databases using variations of the terms "cancer" and "motivational interviewing". Randomised trials, non-randomised trials and quasi-experimental studies which contained control (or usual care) comparators were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Version 5.1.0 and the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Means difference and standardised mean differences and 95 % confidence intervals were used to report the pooled effects using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included in the review and 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 1752 cancer patients and survivors received MI as an intervention (or part thereof). Quality of life, anxiety, depression, functional tasks (6-minute walk test), body mass index and body weight (BMI/BW), physical activity (PA), self-efficacy and fatigue were outcomes measured in the selected studies. Effects were seen in functional tasks, physical activity, BMI/BW, depression and self-efficacy. All of these outcomes were from studies that were classed as very low-quality evidence except for BMI/BW and PA, which were from moderate-quality evidence.

CONCLUSION

Motivational interviewing had positive effects on functional tasks, PA, BMI/BW, depression and self-efficacy in people diagnosed with cancer. However, more higher-quality studies need to be conducted to further ascertain the effect of this intervention.

Quality of Life Associated with Open vs Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

This prospective study was designed to compare quality of life (QoL) among patients who underwent open (O-PD) vs minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD), using a combination of validated qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2017 to 2019, patients scheduled for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were enrolled and presented with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary surveys preoperatively, before discharge, at first postoperative visit and approximately 3 to 4 months after operation ("3 months"). Longitudinal plots of median QoL scores were used to illustrate change in each score over time. In a subset of patients, content analysis of semistructured interviews at postoperative time points (1.5 to 6 months after operation) was conducted.

RESULTS

Among 56 patients who underwent PD, 33 had an O-PD (58.9%). Physical and functional scores decreased in the postoperative period but returned to baseline by 3 months. No significant differences were found in any domains of QoL at baseline and in the postoperative period between patients who underwent O-PD and MI-PD. Qualitative findings were concordant with quantitative data (n = 14). Patients with O-PD and MI-PD reported similar experiences with complications, pain, and wound healing in the postoperative period. Approximately half the patients in both groups reported "returning to normal" in the 6-month postoperative period. A total of 4 patients reported significant long-term issues with physical and functional well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses in patients undergoing PD, we found no association between operative approach and QoL in patients who underwent O-PD vs MI-PD. Given the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques for PD and the steep learning curve associated with these techniques, continued assessment of patient benefit is critical.

Healthy Behaviors: Prevalence of Uptake Among Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

Although most cancer survivors adhere to recommendations to refrain from tobacco and minimize alcohol use, survivors of certain cancers are not meeting these recommendations. In addition, most cancer survivors do not achieve optimal recommendations for diet and physical activity, further decreasing survivor health and quality of life. Sun protective and sleep behaviors also tend to be suboptimal among survivors. Uptake of age-appropriate vaccinations is variable among survivors.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to review the prevalence of healthy behavior uptake among cancer survivors and provide nurses with an overview of effective interventions, strategies, and resources to help patients improve these behaviors.

METHODS

An expert panel was convened to conduct an integrative review and synthesis on the state of the science of healthy behavior uptake among cancer survivors.

FINDINGS

Not meeting recommendations for healthy lifestyle behaviors increases the risk of second cancers and mortality and decreases overall health and quality of life. Healthy lifestyle behaviors can contribute to improved function, quality of life, and overall survival for cancer survivors. Nurses can help survivors to understand and improve their behaviors.

The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P = .007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.31, P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.