Cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program implemented at the time of surgery for lung cancer

Smoking is associated with higher short-term risk of revision and mortality following primary hip or knee arthroplasty: a cohort study of 272,640 patients from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients actively smoking at the time of primary hip or knee arthroplasty are at increased risk of direct perioperative complications. We investigated the association between smoking status and risk of revision and mortality within 2 years following hip or knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

We used prospectively collected data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. All primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs), total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), and unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKAs) with > 2 years' follow-up were included (THA: n = 140,336; TKA: n = 117,497; UKA: n = 14,807). We performed multivariable Cox regression analyses to calculate hazard risks for differences between smokers and non-smokers, while adjusting for confounders (aHR).

RESULTS

The smoking group had higher risk of revision (THA: aHR 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.4 and TKA: aHR 1.4, CI 1.3-1.6) and risk of mortality (THA: aHR 1.4, CI 1.3-1.6 and TKA: aHR 1.4, CI 1.2-1.6). Following UKA, smokers had a higher risk of mortality (aHR 1.7, CI 1.0-2.8), but no differences in risk of revision were observed. The smoking group had a higher risk of revision for infection following TKA (aHR 1.3, CI 1.0-1.6), but not following THA (aHR 1.0, CI 0.8-1.2).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the risk of revision and mortality is higher for smokers than for non-smokers in the first 2 years following THA and TKA. Smoking could contribute to complications following primary hip or knee arthroplasty.

Smoking and Radiation-induced Skin Injury: Analysis of a Multiracial, Multiethnic Prospective Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Smoking during breast radiotherapy (RT) may be associated with radiation-induced skin injury (RISI). We aimed to determine if a urinary biomarker of tobacco smoke exposure is associated with increased rates of RISI during and after breast RT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with Stage 0-IIIA breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy followed by RT to the breast or chest wall with or without regional nodal irradiation were prospectively enrolled on a multicenter study assessing acute/late RISI. 980 patients with urinary cotinine (UCot) measurements (baseline and end-RT) were categorized into three groups. Acute and late RISI was assessed using the ONS Acute Skin Reaction scale and the LENT-SOMA Criteria.

RESULTS

Late Grade 2+ and Grade 3+ RISI occurred in 18.2% and 1.9% of patients, respectively-primarily fibrosis, pain, edema, and hyperpigmentation. Grade 2+ late RISI was associated with UCot group (P= 006). Multivariable analysis identified UCot-based light smoker/secondhand smoke exposure (HR 1.79, P= .10) and smoking (HR 1.60, p = .06) as non-significantly associated with an increased risk of late RISI. Hypofractionated breast RT was associated with decreased risk of late RISI (HR 0.51, P=.03). UCot was not associated with acute RISI, multivariable analysis identified race, obesity, RT site/fractionation, and bra size to be associated with acute RISI.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco exposure during breast RT may be associated with an increased risk of late RISI without an effect on acute toxicity. Smoking cessation should be encouraged prior to radiotherapy to minimize these and other ill effects of smoking.

Anesthesiologists and the Other Pandemic: Tobacco Use

Tobacco use will kill a projected 1 billion people in the 21st century in one of the deadliest pandemics in history. Tobacco use disorder is a disease with a natural history, pathophysiology, and effective treatment options. Anesthesiologists can play a unique role in fighting this pandemic, providing both immediate (reduction in perioperative risk) and long-term (reduction in tobacco-related diseases) benefits to their patients who are its victims. Receiving surgery is one of the most powerful stimuli to quit tobacco. Tobacco treatments that combine counseling and pharmacotherapy (e.g., nicotine replacement therapy) can further increase quit rates and reduce risk of morbidity such as pulmonary and wound-related complications. The perioperative setting provides a great opportunity to implement multimodal perianesthesia tobacco treatment, which combines multiple evidence-based tactics to implement the four core components of consistent ascertainment and documentation of tobacco use, advice to quit, access to pharmacotherapy, and referral to counseling resources.

Lessons from Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Programs for Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer poses important health and financial challenges including reduced effectiveness of expensive cancer therapies. This study explores the value of smoking cessation programs (SCPs) for patients already diagnosed with cancer. It also identifies conditions under which SPCs may be wise investments.

METHODS

Using a simplified decision analytic model combined with insights from a literature review, we explored the cost-effectiveness of SCPs.

RESULTS

The findings provide insights about the potential impact of cessation probabilities among cancer patients in SCPs and the potential impact of SCPs on cancer patients' lives.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that there is good reason to believe that SCPs are an economically attractive way to improve outcomes for cancer patients when SCPs are offered in conjunction with standard cancer care.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation for preventing surgical complications

BACKGROUND

Whilst there is a substantial body of evidence on the costs and benefits of smoking cessation generally, the benefits of routinely providing smoking cessation for surgical populations are less well known. This review summarises the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation to prevent surgical complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the Cochrane, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment, Medline Complete and Scopus databases was conducted from inception until 23/06/2021. Peer-reviewed, English-language articles describing economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions to prevent surgical complications were included. Search results were independently screened for potentially eligible studies. Study characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results were extracted by one reviewer and details checked by a second. Two authors independently assessed reporting and methodological quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument checklist (QHES) respectively.

RESULTS

After removing duplicates, twenty full text articles were screened from 1423 database records, resulting in six included economic evaluations. Studies from the United States (n = 4), France (n = 1) and Spain (n = 1) were reported between 2009 and 2020. Four evaluations were conducted from a payer perspective. Two-thirds of evaluations were well-conducted (mean score 83) and well-reported (on average, 86% items reported). All studies concluded preoperative smoking cessation is cost-effective for preventing surgical complications; results ranged from cost saving to €53,131 per quality adjusted life year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative smoking cessation is cost-effective for preventing surgical complications from a payer or provider perspective when compared to standard care. There is no evidence from outside the United States and Europe to inform healthcare providers, funders and policy-makers in other jurisdictions and more information is needed to clarify the optimal point of implementation to maximise cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation intervention.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021257740. RESEARCH REGISTRY REGISTRATION NUMBER: reviewregistry1369.

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer

Importance

Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs.

Objective

To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers.

Exposures

Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios).

Results

The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

Country profile: Australia, New South Wales. From validation to implementation: Progressing tobacco smoking cessation among people with cancer and beyond via relevant authorities

This paper delineates how a program of tobacco smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis was achieved by engagement of multiple stakeholders, government, and non-government authorities in one jurisdiction in Australia, New South Wales. While it had become increasingly obvious that smoking cessation imparts benefits akin to other known treatment modalities, knowledge of this generalisation is without benefit unless this information is delivered in a trusted context and means to quit are made available. Against a backdrop of little enthusiasm among clinicians, the Cancer Institute NSW, charged with implementing tobacco control strategies, decided to focus its 2017 annual colloquium on the topic. While the evidence was unequivocal, better clarity was needed that this was indeed a clinical responsibility, and on the resources needed. The Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, (COSA) a non-governmental peak national body representing cancer care professionals, addressed this challenge. The society's governing body resolved to develop a position statement indicating how smoking cessation might be integrated within hospital-based cancer care. The position statement, endorsed by nineteen other cancer and non-cancer organisations, provided reassurance to the Institute to improve record capture of hospital smoking information; upskill all clinical staff and develop an automatic "patient opt out" referral to existing resources such as the Quitline. Early pilot work shows that people newly diagnosed with cancer who smoke and who were advised at that time to quit increased from 55% in 2016 to 72% in 2019.

Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

Background

The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications.

Methods

We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020. We analyzed operating costs by resource category (e.g., personnel, medications) concurrently with transcripts from semi-structured key-informant interviews conducted during site visits. Personnel salary costs were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data adjusted for area and occupation, and non-wage benefits. Qualitative findings provided additional information on intangible resources and contextual factors related to implementation costs.

Results

Median total monthly operating costs across funded centers were $11,045 (range: $5129–$20,751). The largest median operating cost category was personnel ($10,307; range: $4122–$19,794), with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications ($17–$573), materials ($6–$435), training ($96–$516), technology ($171–$2759), and equipment ($10–$620). Median cost-per-participant was $466 (range: $70–$2093) and cost-per-quit was $2688 (range: $330–$9628), with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components. Site interviews provided context for understanding variations in program components and their cost implications.

Conclusions

Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs.

Molecular approaches to lung cancer prevention

Lung cancer is generally diagnosed at advanced stages when surgical resection is not possible. Late diagnosis, along with development of chemoresistance, results in high mortality. Preventive approaches, including smoking cessation, chemoprevention and early detection are needed to improve survival. Smoking cessation combined with low-dose computed tomography screening has modestly improved survival. Chemoprevention has also shown some promise. Despite these successes, most lung cancer cases remain undetected until advanced stages. Additional early detection strategies may further improve survival and treatment outcome. Molecular alterations taking place during lung carcinogenesis have the potential to be used in early detection via noninvasive methods and may also serve as biomarkers for success of chemopreventive approaches. This review focuses on the utilization of molecular biomarkers to increase the efficacy of various preventive approaches.

Does short-term cessation of smoking before lung resections reduce the risk of complications?

Background

Smoking cessation is a highly important preparation before thoracic surgery. We examined the effects of short-term smoking cessation intervention before pulmonary resection on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed for 753 patients who underwent curative surgical resection for thoracic malignancy at 3 institutions. Patients with a smoking history were instructed to quit smoking. After confirming smoking cessation by at least four weeks before surgery, surgical resection was performed. Subjects were classified into three groups based on their smoking status: abstainers (anyone who had stopped smoking for at least 4 weeks but less than 2 months), former smokers (anyone who had abstained from smoking for more than two months prior to surgery), and never smokers (those who had never smoked). We examined the relationship between the preoperative smoking status and PPCs.

Results

Surgery was performed for 660 primary lung cancers and 93 metastatic lung tumors. The smoking statuses were classified as follows: abstainers (n=105, 14%), former smokers (n=361; 48%) and never smokers (n=287, 38%). The incidence of PPCs among abstainers, former smokers and never smokers was 15%, 8% and 6%, respectively (P=0.01). The mean duration of post-operative chest tube drainage among abstainers, former smokers and never smokers was 3.2, 2.2 and 2.2 days, respectively (P=0.04). The mean post-operative hospital stay among abstainers, former smokers and never smokers was 12.1, 10.6 and 10.2 days, respectively (P=0.07). There was no 30-day mortality in the cohort.

Conclusions

Short-term smoking cessation intervention did not enough reduce the PPCs as much as in former or never smokers.

Association between smoking cessation and post-hospitalization healthcare costs: a matched cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

The potential economic benefit in terms of reduced healthcare costs when patients quit smoking after hospital discharge has not been directly measured. The aim of this study was to compare the costs for hospital admission and six-month follow-up for a cohort of patients who self-reported abstinence from cigarettes at 6 months after hospital discharge and a matched group of patients who reported continued smoking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a recent population-based clinical trial cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01575145), with cohort membership determined by self-reported 7 day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months after the index hospital discharge. Participants were admitted to Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, MN, between May 5, 2012 and August 10, 2014 for any indication and lived in the areas covered by postal codes included in Olmsted County, MN. Propensity score matching was used to control for differences between groups other than smoking status, and any residual imbalance was adjusted through generalized linear model with gamma distribution for cost and log-link transformation.

RESULTS

Of 600 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, 144 could be contacted and self-reported 7 day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months after hospital discharge. Of these patients, 99 were successfully matched for this analysis. The cost for the index hospitalization was significantly greater in patients who abstained compared to those that did not abstain (mean difference of $3042, higher for abstainers, 95% CI $170 to $5913, P = 0.038). However, there was no difference between mean 6-month follow-up costs, number of inpatient hospitalizations, or number of emergency room visits for abstainers versus non-abstainers.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence to support the hypothesis that abstinence at 6 months after hospital discharge is associated with a decrease in health care costs or utilization over the first 6 months after hospital discharge.

Association of a Comprehensive Smoking Cessation Program With Smoking Abstinence Among Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Patients with cancer who smoke after diagnosis risk experiencing reductions in treatment effectiveness, survival rates, and quality of life, and increases in complications, cancer recurrence, and second primary cancers. Smoking cessation can significantly affect these outcomes, but to date comprehensive treatment is not widely implemented in the oncologic setting.

OBJECTIVES

To describe a potential model tobacco treatment program (TTP) implemented in a cancer setting, report on its long-term outcomes, and highlight its importance to quality patient care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective cohort of smokers was treated in the TTP at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2006, to August 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to December 2018. Participants included 3245 patients (2343 with current cancer; 309 with previous cancer; 593 with no cancer history) drawn from a population of 5061 smokers referred for treatment in the TTP. Reasons for exclusion included follow-up for a noncancerous disease, no medical consultation, smoked less than 1 cigarette per day; or died before the 9-month follow-up.

EXPOSURES

Treatment consisted of an in-person medical consultation, 6 to 8 in-person and telephone follow-up counseling sessions, and 10 to 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was 9-month 7-day point-prevalence abstinence evaluated using time-specific (3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups) and longitudinal covariate-adjusted and unadjusted regression models with multiple imputation, intention-to-treat, and respondent-only approaches to missing data. The Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence was used as a measure of dependence (possible range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate greater dependence).

RESULTS

Of the 3245 smokers, 1588 (48.9%) were men, 322 (9.9%) were of black race/ethnicity, 172 (5.3%) were of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and 2498 (76.0%) were of white race/ethnicity. Mean (SD) age was 54 (11.4) years; Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence score, 4.41 (2.2), number of cigarettes smoked per day, 17.1 (10.7); years smoked, 33 (13.2); and 1393 patients (42.9%) had at least 1 psychiatric comorbidity. Overall self-reported abstinence was 45.1% at 3 months, 45.8% at 6 months, and 43.7% at 9 months in the multiply imputed sample. Results across all models were consistent, suggesting that, in comparison with smokers with no cancer history, abstinence rates within this TTP program did not differ appreciably whether smokers had current cancer, were a cancer survivor, or had smoking-related cancers, with the exception of patients with head and neck cancer; the rates were higher at 9 months (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56; P = .001) and in longitudinal models (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, mean smoking abstinence rates did not differ significantly between patients with cancer and those without cancer. These findings suggest that providing comprehensive tobacco treatment in the oncologic setting can result in sustained high abstinence rates for all patients with cancer and survivors and should be included as standard of care to ensure the best possible cancer treatment outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness Research in Anesthesiology

Perioperative interventions aimed at decreasing costs and improving outcomes have become increasingly popular in recent years. Anesthesiologists are often faced with a choice among different treatment strategies with little data available on the comparative cost-effectiveness. We performed a systematic review of the English language literature between 1980 and 2014 to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of anesthesiology and perioperative medicine interventions. We excluded interventions related to critical care or pediatric anesthesiology, and articles on interventions not normally ordered or performed by anesthesiologists. Of the >5000 cost-effectiveness analyses published to date, only 28 were applicable to anesthesiology and perioperative medicine and met inclusion criteria. Multidisciplinary interventions were the most cost-effective overall; 8 of 8 interventions were "dominant" (improved outcomes, reduced cost) or cost-effective, including accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles. Intraoperative measures were dominant in 3 of 5 cases, including spinal anesthesia for benign abdominal hysterectomy. With regard to prevention of perioperative infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decolonization was dominant or cost-effective in 2 of 2 studies. Three studies assessing various antibiotic prophylaxis regimens had mixed results. Autologous blood donation was not found to be cost-effective in 5 of 7 studies, and intraoperative cell salvage therapy was also not cost-effective in 2 of 2 reports. Overall, there remains a paucity of cost-effectiveness literature in anesthesiology, particularly relating to intraoperative interventions and multidisciplinary perioperative interventions. Based on the available studies, multidisciplinary perioperative optimization interventions such as accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles tended to be most cost-effective. Our review demonstrates that there is a need for more rigorous cost-effective analyses in many areas of anesthesiology and that anesthesiologists should continue to lead collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts in perioperative medicine.

Implementing smoking cessation within cancer treatment centres and potential economic impacts

Background

Although the health benefits of smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients are well established, systematic efforts to help cancer patients stop smoking have rarely been implemented in cancer centres.

Methods

Starting in 2012, the 14 regional cancer centres overseen by Cancer Care Ontario in the province of Ontario, Canada began to screen ambulatory cancer patients for their smoking status, to provide smokers with advice on the health benefits of quitting and to offer referral to smoking cessation services. Multiple initiatives were undertaken to educate healthcare providers and patients on the health benefits of cessation. Critical to the success of the initiative was strong leadership from Cancer Care Ontario executives and regional vice presidents, advice from an advisory committee of smoking cessation experts, engagement of regional champions and support from a provincial secretariat. The quarterly review of performance metrics was an important driver of change.

Results

Most cancer centres now screen in excess of 75% of ambulatory patients but rates for the acceptance of a referral to smoking cessation services remain low (less than 25%). Introduction of an opt-out referral process appears to increase referral acceptance. Economic analyses suggest that smoking cessation is cost-effective in a cancer centre environment.

Conclusions

Although there are barriers to the implementation of smoking cessation in cancer centres, it is possible to change the culture to one in which smoking cessation is considered part of high-quality treatment.

Optimizing health before elective thoracic surgery: systematic review of modifiable risk factors and opportunities for health services research

Despite progress in many different domains of surgical care, we are still striving toward practices which will consistently lead to the best care for an increasingly complex surgical population. Thoracic surgical patients, as a group, have multiple medical co-morbidities and are at increased risk for developing complications after surgical intervention. Our healthcare systems have been focused on treating complications as they occur in the hopes of minimizing their impact, as well as aiding in recovery. In recent years there has emerged a body of evidence outlining opportunities to optimize patients and likely prevent or decrease the impact of many complications. The purpose of this review article is to summarize four major domains-optimal pain control, nutritional status, functional fitness, and smoking cessation-all of which can have a substantial impact on the thoracic surgical patient's course in the hospital-as well as to describe opportunities for improvement, and areas for future research efforts.

Importance of Smoking Cessation on Surgical Outcome in Primary Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is important in the management of patients who require pulmonary resection. However, the impact of short-term smoking cessation on the surgical outcome remains unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with stage I to III primary lung cancer who underwent resection between 2012 and 2016. The rate of operative mortality and morbidity were evaluated according to smoking status. The relationship between the preoperative interval of smoking cessation and pulmonary complications after surgery was also examined.

RESULTS

This study included 666 patients, of whom 256 (38.4%) were never smokers and 410 (61.6%) were smokers. Significant differences were found between the smokers and never smokers regarding the 90-day mortality rate (2.0% versus 0%, p = 0.025) and respiratory complications (22.3% versus 3.5%, p < 0.001). A multivariate analysis indicated that smoking (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, p = 0.017), forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity less than 0.7 (OR 2.6, p = 0.001), percentage of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide less than 40% (OR 4.2, p = < 0.001), and clinical stage of lung cancer (OR 2.3, p = 0.005) were predictors of pulmonary complications after pulmonary resection. In comparison with never smokers, the ORs for pulmonary complications at each cessation interval (current smoker/cessation for <1month, 1 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and >12 months) were 12.9 (p < 0.001), 10.3 (p < 0.001), 8.5 (p < 0.001), 6.3 (p = 0.011), 6.0 (p = 0.003), and 5.0 (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A longer period of cessation might be more effective for reducing the risk of pulmonary complications. Smoking cessation at any time is valuable for lung cancer surgery.

Economic evaluation of smoking cessation in Ontario's regional cancer programs

Quitting smoking after a diagnosis of cancer results in greater response to treatment and decreased risk of disease recurrence and second primary cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of two smoking cessation approaches: the current basic smoking cessation program consisting of screening for tobacco use, advice, and referral; and a best practice smoking cessation program that includes the current basic program with the addition of pharmacological therapy, counseling, and follow-up. A Markov model was constructed that followed 65-year-old smokers with cancer over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality estimates were obtained from the published literature. Costs were obtained from standard costing sources in Ontario and reports. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter uncertainties. For smokers with cancer, the best practice smoking cessation program was more effective and more costly than the basic smoking cessation program. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the best practice smoking cessation program compared to the basic smoking cessation program was $3367 per QALY gained and $5050 per LY gained for males, and $2050 per QALY gained and $4100 per LY gained for females. Results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of mortality for former and current smokers, the probability of quitting smoking through participation in the program and smoking-attributable costs. The study results suggested that a best practice smoking cessation program could be a cost-effective option. These findings can support and guide implementation of smoking cessation programs.

Economic Analysis of a Geographically Defined Cohort of Hospitalized Patients Who Smoke

OBJECTIVE

To compare the indications for hospital admission between current, former, and never smokers and to compare their costs per hospital admission, testing the hypothesis that the cost per hospital admission would be higher for smokers than for former and never smokers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study used a retrospective nested cohort design, with cohort membership determined by cigarette smoking status (current, former, or never). Propensity score-matching techniques were used to control for differences between groups other than smoking status. Participants were admitted to Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, Minnesota, between May 5, 2012, and August 10, 2014, and lived in the areas covered by postal codes included in Olmsted County, Minnesota.

RESULTS

Compared with never smokers, a significantly higher proportion of admissions in current smokers were for diseases of the respiratory system, diseases of the circulatory system, infectious and parasitic diseases, mental illness, and injury or poisoning (P<.001 for all). The average cost per admission (without regard to admission indication) did not depend on smoking status. Accounting for dependence of admission indication on smoking status, there were no significant differences in costs between current and never smokers ($199 less per admission for current smokers; 95% CI -$820 to $423; P=.53) but costs in current smokers were actually significantly less than costs in former smokers (by -$870 per admission; 95% CI, -$1665 to -$76; P=.03).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that the cost of hospital admission is higher in current smokers than in never or former smokers, even when controlling for admission indication, in a general population of medical and surgical patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575145.

How can we better help cancer patients quit smoking? The London Regional Cancer Program experience with smoking cessation

Background

Because continued cigarette smoking after a cancer diagnosis is associated with detrimental outcomes, supporting cancer patients with smoking cessation is imperative. We evaluated the effect of the Smoking Cessation Program at the London Regional Cancer Program (lrcp) over a 2-year period.

Methods

The Smoking Cessation Program at the lrcp began in March 2014. New patients are screened for tobacco use. Tobacco users are counselled about the benefits of cessation and are offered referral to the program. If a patient accepts, a smoking cessation champion offers additional counselling. Follow-up is provided by interactive voice response (ivr) telephone system. Accrual data were collected monthly from January 2015 to December 2016 and were evaluated.

Results

During 2015-2016, 10,341 patients were screened for tobacco use, and 18% identified themselves as current or recent tobacco users. In 2015, 84% of tobacco users were offered referral, but only 13% accepted, and 3% enrolled in ivr follow-up. At the lrcp in 2016, 77% of tobacco users were offered referral to the program, but only 9% of smokers accepted, and only 2% enrolled in ivr follow-up.

Conclusions

The Smoking Cessation Program at the lrcp has had modest success, because multiple factors influence a patient's success with cessation. Limitations of the program include challenges in referral and counselling, limited access to nicotine replacement therapy (nrt), and minimal follow-up. To mitigate some of those challenges, a pilot project was launched in January 2017 in which patients receive free nrt and referral to the local health unit.

Tobacco Cessation in Oncology Care

Globally, tobacco use is a major modifiable risk factor and leading cause of many forms of cancer and cancer death. Tobacco use contributes to poorer prognosis in cancer care. This article reviews the current state of tobacco cessation treatment in oncology. Effective behavioral and pharmacological treatments exist for tobacco cessation, but are not being widely used in oncology treatment settings. Comprehensive tobacco treatment increases success with quitting smoking and can improve oncological and overall health outcomes. This article describes the components of a model treatment program, which includes automatic referrals for all current tobacco users and recent quitters, motivational interviewing during initial and follow-up contacts, combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions for cessation, and systematic follow-up phone calls for relapse prevention.

Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) Collaboration

National recommendations for lung cancer screening for former and current smokers aged 55-80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history create demand to implement efficient and effective systems to offer smoking cessation on a large scale. These older, high-risk smokers differ from participants in past clinical trials of behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for tobacco dependence. There is a gap in knowledge about how best to design systems to extend reach and treatments to maximize smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. Eight clinical trials, seven funded by the National Cancer Institute and one by the Veterans Health Administration, address this gap and form the SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration. This paper describes methodological issues related to the design of these clinical trials: clinical workflow, participant eligibility criteria, screening indication (baseline or annual repeat screen), assessment content, interest in stopping smoking, and treatment delivery method and dose, all of which will affect tobacco treatment outcomes. Tobacco interventions consider the "teachable moment" offered by lung cancer screening, how to incorporate positive and negative screening results, and coordination of smoking cessation treatment with clinical events associated with lung cancer screening. Unique data elements, such as perceived risk of lung cancer and costs of tobacco treatment, are of interest. Lung cancer screening presents a new and promising opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality resulting from lung cancer that can be amplified by effective smoking cessation treatment. SCALE teamwork and collaboration promise to maximize knowledge gained from the clinical trials.

Financial benefit of a smoking cessation program prior to elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking increases the risk of postoperative complications nearly 2-fold. Preoperative smoking cessation programs may reduce complications as well as overall postoperative costs. We aim to create an economic evaluation framework to estimate the potential value of preoperative smoking cessation programs for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model from the payer perspective was developed to integrate the costs and incidence of 90-day postoperative complications and readmissions for a cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery after a smoking cessation program versus usual care. Complication, readmission, and cost data were derived from a cohort of 534 current smokers and recent quitters undergoing elective colorectal resections in Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program linked to Washington State's Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System. Smoking cessation program efficacy was obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty.

RESULTS

For a cohort of patients, the base case estimates imply that the total direct medical costs for patients who underwent a preoperative smoking cessation program were on average $304 (95% CI: $40-$571) lower per patient than those under usual care during the first 90 days after surgery. The model was most sensitive to the odds of recent quitters developing complications or requiring readmission, and smoking program efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

A preoperative smoking cessation program is predicted to be cost-saving over the global postoperative period if the cost of the intervention is below $304 per patient. This framework allows the value of smoking cessation programs of variable cost and effectiveness to be determined.

Medical costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with smoking: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Estimated medical costs ("T") and QALYs ("Q") associated with smoking are frequently used in cost-utility analyses of tobacco control interventions. The goal of this study was to understand how researchers have addressed the methodological challenges involved in estimating these parameters.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a systematic review of tobacco modeling studies. We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 with no date restrictions and synthesized studies qualitatively. Studies were eligible for the current analysis if they were U.S.-based, provided an estimate for Q, and used a societal perspective and lifetime analytic horizon to estimate T. We identified common methods and frequently cited sources used to obtain these estimates.

RESULTS

Across all 18 studies included in this review, 50 % cited a 1992 source to estimate the medical costs associated with smoking and 56 % cited a 1996 study to derive the estimate for QALYs saved by quitting or preventing smoking. Approaches for estimating T varied dramatically among the studies included in this review. T was valued as a positive number, negative number and $0; five studies did not include estimates for T in their analyses. The most commonly cited source for Q based its estimate on the Health Utilities Index (HUI). Several papers also cited sources that based their estimates for Q on the Quality of Well-Being Scale and the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D).

CONCLUSIONS

Current estimates of the lifetime medical care costs and the QALYs associated with smoking are dated and do not reflect the latest evidence on the health effects of smoking, nor the current costs and benefits of smoking cessation and prevention. Given these limitations, we recommend that researchers conducting economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions perform extensive sensitivity analyses around these parameter estimates.

A Primer on Health Economic Evaluations in Thoracic Oncology

There is growing interest for economic evaluation in oncology to illustrate the value of multiple new diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. As these analyses have started to move from specialist publications into mainstream medical literature, the wider medical audience consuming this information may need additional education to evaluate it appropriately. Here we review standard practices in economic evaluation, illustrating the different methods with thoracic oncology examples where possible. When interpreting and conducting health economic studies, it is important to appraise the method, perspective, time horizon, modeling technique, discount rate, and sensitivity analysis. Guidance on how to do this is provided. To provide a method to evaluate this literature, a literature search was conducted in spring 2015 to identify economic evaluations published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology. Articles were reviewed for their study design, and areas for improvement were noted. Suggested improvements include using more rigorous sensitivity analyses, adopting a standard approach to reporting results, and conducting complete economic evaluations. Researchers should design high-quality studies to ensure the validity of the results, and consumers of this research should interpret these studies critically on the basis of a full understanding of the methodologies used before considering any of the conclusions. As advancements occur on both the research and consumer sides, this literature can be further developed to promote the best use of resources for this field.

Mathematical Modeling in Tobacco Control Research: Initial Results From a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies.

RESULTS

The 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.

Integration of tobacco cessation services into multidisciplinary lung cancer care: rationale, state of the art, and future directions

Tobacco use is the largest risk factor for lung cancer and many lung cancer patients still smoke at the time of diagnosis. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend that all patients receive evidence-based tobacco treatment, implementation of these services in oncology practices is inconsistent and inadequate. Multidisciplinary lung cancer treatment programs offer an ideal environment to optimally deliver effective smoking cessation services. This article reviews best practice recommendations and current status of tobacco treatment for oncology patients, and provides recommendations to optimize delivery of tobacco treatment in multidisciplinary practice.

Impact of postdiagnosis smoking on long-term survival of cancer patients: the Shanghai cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the number one cause of death among men in China. Cigarette smoking is the most preventable cause of cancer. Data on the impact of continued smoking after cancer diagnosis on survival of patients with cancer are sparse.

METHODS

We studied the association between postdiagnosis smoking and risk of all-cause death among 1,632 incident cancer patients in the Shanghai Cohort Study, a population-based prospective cohort of 18,244 men in Shanghai. The change of smoking status after baseline interview was ascertained through annual in-person interviews. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all-cause mortality associated with change in smoking status.

RESULTS

Patients who continued smoking after cancer diagnosis experienced a statistically significant 59% (95% CI, 36-86) increase in risk of death compared with patients with cancer who did not smoke after cancer diagnosis. Among current smokers at cancer diagnosis, HRs (95% CIs) were 1.79 (1.49-2.16) in all patients with cancer, 2.36 (1.63-3.42) in patients with lung cancer, 1.63 (0.98-2.73) in patients with stomach cancer, 2.31 (1.40-3.81) in patients with colorectal cancer, and 2.95 (1.09-7.95) in patients with bladder cancer who continued smoking compared with their counterparts who stopped smoking after cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Postdiagnosis cigarettes smoking significantly increased the risk of death for male patients with cancer.

IMPACT

These data provide new information about smoking and cancer survival, which should inform future research into the contextual and individual-level barriers that may result in inadequate attention of smoking among patients with cancer in the postdiagnosis setting.

Importance of Smoking Cessation in a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Early detection of lung cancer and smoking cessation interventions can decrease lung cancer mortality, but information on the effectiveness and interaction between smoking cessation and lung cancer screening is sparse and inconsistent. This review aims to synthesize recent studies in two major areas of interest. First, we explore the interactions and potential for synergies between lung cancer screening programs and smoking cessation by summarizing reported changes in smoking behavior observed in major screening trials in the United States and Europe, as well as attempts to use smoking cessation interventions to augment the benefits from lung cancer screening programs. Second, we review the interaction between smoking habits and pre/post-operative pulmonary resection outcomes, including changes in smoking behavior post-diagnosis and post-treatment. Information from these areas should allow us to maximize benefits from smoking cessation interventions through the entire lung cancer screening process, from the screen itself through potential curative resection after diagnosis.

Treatment receipt and outcomes among lung cancer patients with depression

AIMS

Among lung cancer patients, depression has been associated with increased mortality, although the mechanisms are unknown. We evaluated the association of depression with mortality and receipt of cancer therapies among depressed veterans with lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, cohort study of lung cancer patients in the Veterans Affairs-Northwest Health Network from 1995 to 2010. Depression was defined by ICD-9 coding within 24 months before lung cancer diagnosis. Multivariable Cox proportional analysis and logistic regression were used.

RESULTS

In total, 3869 lung cancer patients were evaluated; 14% had a diagnosis of depression. A diagnosis of depression was associated with increased mortality among all stage lung cancer patients (hazard ratio = 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.27, P = 0.01). Among early-stage (I and II) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, the hazard ratio was 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.12-1.68, P = 0.003). There was no association of depression diagnosis with surgery (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.22, P = 0.34) among early-stage NSCLC patients. A depression diagnosis was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.16, P = 0.78) or chemotherapy (odds ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 0.83-1.39, P = 0.59) or radiation (odds ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.34, P = 0.75) receipt among advanced-stage (III and IV) NSCLC patients. Increased utilisation of health services for depression was associated with increased mortality among depressed patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression is associated with increased mortality in lung cancer patients and this association is higher among those with increased measures of depression care utilisation. Differences in lung cancer treatment receipt are probably not responsible for the observed mortality differences between depressed and non-depressed patients. Clinicians should recognise the significant effect of depression on lung cancer survival.

Treatment of tobacco use in lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Continued tobacco use in the setting of lung cancer management is frequently confounding and always of critical importance. We summarized the published literature concerning the management of tobacco dependence in patients with lung cancer and offer recommendations for integrating dependence treatment into ongoing oncologic care.

METHODOLOGY

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Collaborative databases were searched for English language randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, secular trend analyses, and case series relevant to the a priori identified clinical questions. Evidence grading, integration, and genesis of recommendations followed the methods described in "Methodology for Development of Guidelines for Lung Cancer" in the American College of Chest Physicians Lung Cancer Guidelines, 3rd ed.

RESULTS

We describe the approach to tobacco dependence in patients with lung cancer at various phases in the evolution of cancer care. For example, among patients undergoing lung cancer screening procedures, we recommend against relying on the screening itself, including procedures accompanied solely by self-help materials, as an effective strategy for achieving abstinence. Among patients with lung cancer undergoing surgery, intensive perioperative cessation pharmacotherapy is recommended as a method for improving abstinence rates. Cessation pharmacotherapy is also recommended for patients undergoing chemotherapy, with specific recommendations to use bupropion when treating patients with lung cancer with depressive symptoms, as a means of improving abstinence rates, depressive symptoms, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal treatment of lung cancer includes attention to continued tobacco use, with abstinence contributing to improved patient-related outcomes at various phases of lung cancer management. Effective therapeutic interventions are available and are feasibly integrated into oncologic care. A number of important clinical questions remain poorly addressed by the existing evidence.

Smoking Cessation Interventions and Cessation Rates in the Oncology Population

Objectives

To evaluate tobacco smoking cessation interventions and cessation rates in the oncology population through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources

The literature was searched using PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to October 2012) by 3 independent review authors.

Review Methods

Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort (PCs) studies evaluating tobacco smoking cessation interventions with patients assigned to a usual care or an intervention group. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation rates. Two authors extracted data independently for each study. When applicable, disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Results

The systematic review identified 10 RCTs and 3 PCs. Statistical analysis was conducted using StatsDirect software (Cheshire, UK). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for smoking cessation interventions were calculated in 2 groups based on follow-up duration. The therapeutic interventions included counseling, nicotine replacement therapy, buproprion, and varenicline. Smoking cessation interventions had a pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.909-2.64) for patients in the shorter follow-up group and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.931-1.84) in the longer follow-up group. Smoking cessation interventions in the perioperative period had a pooled odds ratio of 2.31 (95% CI, 1.32-4.07).

Conclusion

Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that tobacco cessation interventions in the oncology population, in both the short-term and long-term follow-up groups, do not significantly affect cessation rates. The perioperative period, though, may represent an important teachable moment with regard to smoking cessation.

Does getting smokers to stop smoking before lung resections reduce their risk?

A best-evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question of whether the incidence of major pulmonary morbidity after lung resection was associated with the timing of smoking cessation was addressed. Overall 49 papers were found using the reported search outlined below, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. In most studies, smoking abstinence was shown to reduce the incidence of post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs) such as pneumonia, respiratory distress, atelectasis, air leakage, bronchopleural fistula and re-intubation. The timing of cessation is not clearly identified, although there is some evidence showing reduction in risk of PPCs with increasing interval since cessation. Two studies suggested that smoking abstinence for at least 4 weeks prior to surgery was necessary in order to reduce the incidence of major pulmonary events. Furthermore, it was also shown that a pre-operative smoke-free period of >10 weeks produced complication rates similar to those of patients who had never smoked. We conclude that smoking cessation reduces the risk of PPCs. All patients should be advised and counseled to stop smoking before any form of lung resection.

Smoking cessation: an integral part of lung cancer treatment

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the US. About 50% of lung cancer patients are current smokers at the time of diagnosis and up to 83% continue to smoke after diagnosis. A recent study suggests that people who continue to smoke after a diagnosis of early-stage lung cancer almost double their risk of dying. Despite a growing body of evidence that continued smoking by patients after a lung cancer diagnosis is linked with less effective treatment and a poorer prognosis, the belief prevails that treating tobacco dependence is useless. With improved cancer treatments and survival rates, smoking cessation among lung cancer patients has become increasingly important. There is a pressing need to clarify the role of smoking cessation in the care of lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

This paper will report on the benefits of smoking cessation for lung cancer patients and the elements of smoking cessation treatment, with consideration of tailoring to the needs of lung cancer patients.

RESULTS

Given the significant benefits of smoking cessation and that tobacco dependence remains a challenge for many lung cancer patients, cancer care providers need to offer full support and intensive treatment with a smoking cessation program that is tailored to lung cancer patients' specific needs.

CONCLUSION

A tobacco dependence treatment plan for lung cancer patients is provided.