Addressing tobacco use in patients with cancer: a survey of American Society of Clinical Oncology members

Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons

PURPOSE

Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice.

METHODS

Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs.

RESULTS

Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%).

CONCLUSION

Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices.

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Understanding cancer patients' desire to quit tobacco without assistance: A mixed-methods study

While many cancer patients who use tobacco try to quit post-diagnosis, some prefer to quit without using tobacco treatment, despite evidence against unassisted quit attempts. This study aimed to understand the rationale for some cancer patients' desire to quit tobacco without assistance. Thirty-five adult cancer patients who currently used tobacco and declined tobacco treatment because of the desire to quit unassisted provided data via a standardized questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The sample was predominately White, non-Hispanic (85.71%) and female (68.57%). The most common cancer site was gynecological. Key themes that emerged from the interviews were: self-reliance, willpower, social norms, and negative attitudes toward tobacco treatment. The most frequently endorsed barrier to tobacco treatment was "I know others who have quit without tobacco treatment" (82.86%). This study with cancer patients identified affective, cognitive, and personality factors related to quitting unassisted, and social and systemic reasons to not use tobacco treatment.

Practice patterns, experiences, and challenges of German oncology health care staff with smoking cessation in patients with cancer: a cross-sectional survey study

PURPOSE

Often, cancer patients do not receive education about the negative consequences of smoking on the treatment outcome. To support cancer patients in the process of smoking cessation, it is essential to involve oncology staff. This study aims to learn about the experiences and attitudes from the point of view of oncology staff and, thus, how a smoking intervention should be designed. The study aims to engage all oncology staff due to the unclear responsibility for providing smoking cessation education, support, and motivating cancer patients to quit smoking.

METHODS

N = 354 German oncology staff (oncologists, nurses, psycho-oncologists, others) filled out a 5-point Likert scale-based questionnaire regarding practices, potential barriers, and attitudes towards smoking cessation between October 2021 and June 2022. The questionnaire was developed by Derksen et al. (2020), translated and slightly modified for the use of this study. It was distributed to all leading oncology staff in our Cancer Center Network with a request to share with all oncology staff. Flyers were also handed out in all oncology wards and outpatient clinics in the same Cancer Center Network.

RESULTS

Most oncology staff ask cancer patients about their current smoking status (curative, M = 2.27; SD = 1.59; palliative, M = 2.90; SD = 1.83), but they rarely treat or refer patients for a smoking cessation intervention (curative, M = 4.78; SD = 1.20; palliative, M = 4.99; SD = 1.06). Smoking behavior of curative cancer patients is addressed more than that of palliative cancer patients (d =  - 37). Regression analyses of key dependent variables showed that profession, setting, and the belief that continued smoking affects treatment outcome explained the variance of asking patients if they smoke, advising to stop smoking and lack of time (without profession).

CONCLUSION

Involving oncology staff in motivating cancer patients who smoke to quit and referring them to smoking cessation services should take the different attitudes and knowledge of the staff into account to improve treatment that supports tobacco cessation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer patients have special needs when it comes to a cessation program. In the long term, survivors will benefit from tailored smoking cessation education and services provided by oncology staff to help them quit smoking after a cancer diagnosis.

Unmet Needs and Receipt of Supportive Care Services in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Prior to Oncologic Treatment: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the supportive care (SC) needs and receipt of SC services among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients prior to oncologic treatment and to explore the influence of social determinants of health on these outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Newly diagnosed HNC patients were surveyed via telephone prior to oncologic treatment between 10/2019 and 1/2021 using a prospective, cross-sectional, bi-institutional, pilot study design. The primary study outcome was unmet SC needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form34 [SCNS-SF34]). Hospital type (university- vs county safety-net) was explored as an exposure. Descriptive statistics were performed using STATA16 (College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Among 158 potentially eligible patients, 129 were successfully contacted, 78 met the study criteria, and 50 completed the survey. The mean age was 61, 58% exhibited clinical stage III-IV disease, and 68% and 32% were treated at the university and county safety-net hospital, respectively. Patients were surveyed a median of 20 days after their first oncology visit and 17 days prior to initiation of oncology treatment. They had a median of 24 total needs (11 were met and 13 were unmet) and preferred to see a median of 4 SC services but received care from none. County safety-net patients had comparatively more unmet needs than university patients (14.5 vs 11.5, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment HNC patients at a bi-institutional academic medical center report a high number of unmet SC needs with corollary poor receipt of available SC services. Novel interventions to address this significant gap in care are needed.

Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke

PURPOSE

Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology.

METHODS

We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model.

RESULTS

From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.

Urologists' Perceptions and Practices Related to Patient Smoking and Cessation: A National Assessment From the 2021 American Urological Association Census

OBJECTIVE

To assess urologists' perceptions and practices related to smoking and smoking cessation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six survey questions were designed to assess beliefs, practices, and determinants related to tobacco use assessment and treatment (TUAT) in outpatient urology clinics. These questions were included in an annual census survey (2021) offered to all practicing urologists. Responses were weighted to represent the practicing US population of nonpediatric urologists (N = 12,852). The primary outcome was affirmative responses to the question, "Do you agree it is important for urologists to screen for and provide smoking cessation treatment to patients in the outpatient clinic?" Practice patterns, perceptions, and opinions of optimal care delivery were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 98% of urologists agreed (27%) or strongly agreed (71%) that cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to urologic disease. However, only 58% agreed that TUAT is important in urology clinics. Most urologists (61%) advise patients who smoke to quit but do not provide additional cessation counseling or medications or arrange follow-up. The most frequently identified barriers to TUAT were lack of time (70%), perceptions that patients are unwilling to quit (44%), and lack of comfort prescribing cessation medications (42%). Additionally, 72% of respondents stated that urologists should provide a recommendation to quit and refer patients for cessation support.

CONCLUSION

TUAT does not routinely occur in an evidence-based fashion in outpatient urology clinics. Addressing established barriers and facilitating these practices with multilevel implementation strategies can promote tobacco treatment and improve outcomes for patients with urologic disease.

Tobacco Use and Tobacco Dependence Management

Tobacco use is a major public health problem and the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States and worldwide. Tobacco dependence determines tobacco use and is largely due to nicotine addiction. Such dependence is a disease resulting in a strong desire or compulsion to take tobacco, with difficulty in cessation of tobacco, along with persistent use despite overtly harmful consequences.

Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer is still a matter of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between cigarette smoking and prostate cancer risk.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without language or time restrictions on June 11, 2022. Literature search and study screening were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Prospective cohort studies that assessed the association between cigarette smoking habits and the risk of prostate cancer were included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used random-effects models to obtain pooled estimates and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 7296 publications were screened, of which 44 cohort studies were identified for qualitative analysis; 39 articles comprising 3 296 398 participants and 130 924 cases were selected for further meta-analysis. Current smoking had a significantly reduced risk of prostate cancer (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.80; P < 0.001), especially in studies completed in the prostate-specific antigen screening era. Compared to former smokers, current smokers had a significant lower risk of PCa (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.75; P < 0.001). Ever smoking showed no association with prostate cancer risk in overall analyses (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.074), but an increased risk of prostate cancer in the pre-prostate-specific antigen screening era (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = 0.046) and a lower risk of prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen screening era (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = 0.011) were observed. Former smoking did not show any association with the risk of prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the lower risk of prostate cancer in smokers can probably be attributed to their poor adherence to cancer screening and the occurrence of deadly smoking-related diseases, and we should take measures to help smokers to be more compliant with early cancer screening and to quit smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022326464).

Provision of smoking cessation support for patients following a diagnosis of cancer in Ireland

There is growing evidence that smoking cessation (SC) improves outcomes following diagnosis of cancer. Notwithstanding adverse outcomes, a significant number of those diagnosed with cancer continue to smoke. Our objective was to document the SC services provided for patients with cancer by specialist adult cancer hospitals across Ireland, a country with a stated tobacco endgame goal. A cross-sectional survey based on recent national clinical guidelines was used to determine SC care delivery across eight adult cancer specialist hospitals, and one specialist radiotherapy centre. Qualtrics was used. The response rate was 88.9% with data reported from seven cancer hospitals and one specialist radiotherapy centre, all indicating they had some SC related provision (100%). Stop smoking medications were provided to cancer inpatients in two hospitals, at outpatients and attending day ward services in one hospital. Smokers with cancer were referred automatically to the SC service in two hospitals at diagnosis. While stop smoking medications were available 24 h a day in five hospitals, most did not stock all three (Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Bupropion, Varenicline). One hospital advised they had data on uptake of SC services for smokers with cancer but were unable to provide detail. There is considerable variation in SC information and services provided to cancer patients across adult cancer specialist centres in Ireland, reflecting the suboptimal practice of smoking cessation for patients with cancer found in the limited international audits. Such audits are essential to demonstrate service gaps and provide a baseline for service improvement.

Patient-Reported Receipt of Oncology Clinician-Delivered Brief Tobacco Treatment (5As) Six Months following Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis represents a modifiable health risk. It is recommended that oncology clinicians address tobacco use among their patients using the 5As brief model: Asking about use, Advising users to quit, Assessing willingness to quit, Assisting in quit attempts (counseling and medication), and Arranging follow-up. However, cross-sectional studies have found limited adoption of 5As (especially Assist and Arrange) in oncology settings. Further investigation is needed to understand changes in, and factors associated with, 5As delivery over time.

METHODS

Patients recently diagnosed with cancer and reporting current smoking (N = 303) enrolled in a smoking cessation clinical trial and completed three longitudinal surveys; at pre-intervention baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up post-enrollment. Patient-level correlates of 5As receipt at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months were identified using multilevel regression models.

RESULTS

At baseline, patient-reported rates of 5As receipt from oncology clinicians ranged from 85.17% (Ask) to 32.24% (Arrange). Delivery declined from baseline to 6-month follow-up for all 5As, with the largest declines observed for Ask, Advise, Assess, and Assist-Counseling. Diagnosis of a smoking-related cancer was associated with greater odds of 5As receipt at baseline but lower odds at 6-month follow-up. At each time point, female gender, religiosity, advanced disease, cancer-related stigma, and smoking abstinence were associated with lower odds of 5As receipt, while reporting a recent quit attempt prior to enrollment was associated with higher odds of 5As receipt.

CONCLUSION

Oncology clinicians' 5As delivery declined over time. Clinician delivery of the 5As varied based on patients' sociodemographics, clinical and smoking characteristics, and psychosocial factors.

Addictions, Social Deprivation and Cessation Failure in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Survivors

AIM

To evaluate the evolution of addictions (tobacco and alcohol) and social precarity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma survivors when these factors are addressed from the time of diagnosis.

METHODS

Addictions and social precarity in patients with a new diagnosis of HNSCC were assessed through the EPICES score, the Fagerström score, and the CAGE questionnaire. When identified as precarious/dependent, patients were referred to relevant addiction/social services.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-two patients were included. At the time of diagnosis, an active tobacco consumption was associated with alcohol drinking (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001). Active smokers were more socially deprived (mean EPICES score = mES = 36.2 [±22.1]) than former smokers (mES = 22.8 [±17.8]) and never smokers (mES = 18.9 [±14.5]; Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.001). The EPICES score was correlated to the Fagerström score (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.001). Active drinkers (mES = 34.1 [±21.9]) and former drinkers (mES = 32.7 [±21]) were more likely to be socially deprived than those who never drank (mES = 20.8 [±17.1]; Krukal-Wallis, p < 0.001). A Fagerström score improvement at one year was associated to a CAGE score improvement (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001). Tobacco and alcohol consumption were more than halved one year after treatment. Patients who continued to smoke one year after diagnosis were significantly more likely to continue to drink (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001) and had a significantly higher initial EPICES score (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

At one year, addictions and social deprivation tend to improve when taken care of from the diagnosis. The most dependent patients and those with multiple frailties are at highest risk of cessation failure.

Smoking Cessation and Tobacco-related Risk Perceptions among People with and without a Diagnosis of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how cancer diagnosis and tobacco-related risk perceptions are associated with smoking behavior.

METHODS

We used data from Waves (W) 1-3 (2013-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study to analyze longitudinal smoking behavior among adults who were current smokers and not previously diagnosed with cancer at baseline (W1; N = 7,829). The outcome was smoking cessation as of follow-up (W3). Explanatory variables were sociodemographics, other tobacco product use, adult at first cigarette, tobacco dependence, cancer diagnosis after baseline, and tobacco-related risk perceptions [cigarette harm perception, worry that tobacco products will damage one's health ("worry"), belief that smoking causes cancer ("belief"), and nondaily smoking harm perception].

RESULTS

Cessation was significantly associated with baseline worry (OR = 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.40), follow-up cigarette harm perception [OR = 2.01 (1.77-2.29)], and follow-up belief [OR = 1.40 (1.20-1.63)]. Cessation was inversely associated with follow-up (W3) worry, and this association was stronger among those without a cancer diagnosis (OR = 0.37 without cancer; OR = 0.76 among individuals diagnosed with cancer; interaction P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cessation is associated with tobacco-related risk perceptions, with different perceptions contributing in unique ways. Cessation is predicted by baseline worry but is inversely associated with worry at follow-up, suggesting that perhaps cessation has alleviated worry. The latter finding was stronger among respondents not diagnosed with cancer.

IMPACT

Associations between cancer diagnosis, tobacco-related risk perceptions, and smoking behavior may inform the development of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions.

Developing a Collaborative, Team-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment Program in an Outpatient Oncology Setting

PURPOSE

Because clinical specialists often lack time and training to address secondary health issues such as smoking cessation, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) has mobilized cancer centers to develop systems for treating patients' tobacco dependence.

METHODS

One university-based cancer center was able to develop a program that formalized smoking treatment using a collaborative, multidisciplinary care team with overlapping expertise in cancer care, medication management, and tobacco cessation. Program planners delivered tobacco cessation services in the outpatient setting by automating identification of eligible patients using a tobacco registry in the electronic health records, directly involving oncology pharmacists in medication oversight, using dedicated tobacco treatment specialists to provide cessation services, and engaging oncologists through active communications protocols. Evaluators used Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model as the guiding framework for a qualitative assessment of program development and implementation. Evaluators also measured provider satisfaction and utilization of services, program reach, and smoking cessation outcomes 6 months post enrollment.

RESULTS

During the evaluation period (July 1, 2018-September 30, 2019), the smoking cessation program engaged 96% of eligible patients (n = 214 of 223 eligible); 82% of those enrolled in the program (n = 183). At 6-month follow-up, 29.1% of enrolled patients self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (n = 53) and 34.9% (n = 64) reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (intent-to-treat rates).

CONCLUSION

Using a team-based approach that leverages individual expertise and interprofessional collaboration to provide patient-centered treatment, a smoking cessation program can identify and treat eligible patients in specialty clinics.

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: An Updated Policy Statement From the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Combustible tobacco use has reached historic lows, demonstrating the importance of proven strategies to reduce smoking since publication of the 1964 Surgeon General's report. In contrast, the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), specifically e-cigarettes, has grown to alarming rates and threatens to hinder progress against tobacco use. A major concern is ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. While ENDS emit fewer carcinogens than combustible tobacco, preliminary evidence links ENDS use to DNA damage and inflammation, key steps in cancer development. Furthermore, high levels of nicotine can also increase addiction, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development, and suppress the immune system. The magnitude of long-term health risks will remain unknown until longitudinal studies are completed. ENDS have been billed as a promising tool for combustible tobacco cessation, but further evidence is needed to assess their potential efficacy for adults who smoke. Of concern, epidemiological studies estimate that approximately 15%-42% of adults who use ENDS have never used another tobacco product, and another 36%-54% dual use both ENDS and combustible tobacco. This policy statement details advances in science related to ENDS and calls for urgent action to end predatory practices of the tobacco industry and protect public health. Importantly, we call for an immediate ban on all non-tobacco-flavored ENDS products that contain natural or synthetic nicotine to reduce ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. Concurrently, evidence-based treatments to promote smoking cessation and prevent smoking relapse to reduce cancer incidence and improve public health remain top priorities for our organizations. We also recognize there is an urgent need for research to understand the relationship between ENDS and tobacco-related disparities.

Oncology Patient Smoking Cessation Treatment Preferences: Perceptions Across Former and Current Cigarette Smokers

Although the benefits of smoking cessation following a cancer diagnosis have been well-established, up to 50% of cancer patients continue to smoke. Continued smoking through oncology treatment leads to increased risk of adverse events including reduced effectiveness of treatment, recurrence of additional malignancies, and reduced survival rates. Upon the cancer diagnosis, oncology healthcare providers become the primary trusted source of information and support, which represents a great opportunity to assist these patients to quit smoking. However, it remains unclear how oncology healthcare providers can best address smoking cessation from a patient-centered perspective. The present study surveyed oncology patients from Birmingham, AL, classified as either former (n = 174) or current smokers (n = 81) to identify their perceptions regarding the role of oncology healthcare providers in their smoking cessation efforts. Current smokers were more likely to be younger, received their cancer diagnosis within the past 3 years, and have a cancer diagnosis with high smoking-related public awareness (i.e., head, neck, or lung) compared to former smokers. Additionally, 81% of current smokers reported experiencing smoking cessation discussions with their oncology healthcare providers with the most prominent recommendations being use of nicotine replacement therapies (46.9%) and medication (35.8%). These smoking cessation experiences align with patient preferences. However, despite the frequency of smoking cessation discussions, current smokers demonstrated an ambivalence in understanding the risks of continued smoking during their medical treatment. Overall, this study highlights the important role of oncology healthcare providers on implementing smoking cessation intervention for their patients who continue to smoke.

Reducing stigma triggered by assessing smoking status among patients diagnosed with lung cancer: De-stigmatizing do and don't lessons learned from qualitative interviews

Objective

To characterize lung cancer patients' reactions to cancer care providers' (CCPs) assessment of smoking behavior and to develop recommendations to reduce stigma and improve patient-clinician communication about smoking in the context of lung cancer care.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 56 lung cancer patients (Study 1) and focus groups with 11 lung cancer patients (Study 2) were conducted and analyzed using thematic content analysis.

Results

Three broad themes were identified: cursory questions about smoking history and current behavior; stigma triggered by assessment of smoking behavior; and recommended dos and don'ts for CCPs treating patients with lung cancer. CCP communication that contributed to patients' comfort included responding in an empathic manner and using supportive verbal and non-verbal communication skills. Blaming statements, doubting patients' self-reported smoking status, insinuating subpar care, nihilistic statements, and avoidant behaviors contributed to patients' discomfort.

Conclusions

Patients often experienced stigma in response to smoking-related discussions with their CCPs and identified several communication strategies that CCPs can use to improve patients' comfort within these clinical encounters.

Innovation

These patient perspectives advance the field by providing specific communication recommendations that CCPs can adopt to mitigate stigma and enhance lung cancer patients' comfort, particularly when taking a routine smoking history.

Cancer care clinicians' provision of smoking cessation support: A mixed methods study in New South Wales, Australia

OBJECTIVES

Given the importance of supporting cancer patients to quit smoking, we sought to ascertain cancer care clinicians' beliefs and practices regarding providing smoking cessation brief interventions.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional sequential explanatory mixed method design, including a survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians and semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five cancer care clinicians completed the survey and 21 participated in interviews. Over half of survey respondents (53%) said they do not regularly undertake smoking cessation brief interventions and 40% rarely or never advise quitting. Nonmetropolitan clinicians were more likely to discuss medication options and refer to the Quitline. Physicians were more likely to do brief interventions with patients and radiation therapists were least likely. Barriers were lack of training and experience, lack of knowledge of the Quitline referral process, lack of role clarity, lack of resources and systems, and perceived psychological ramifications of cancer for patients.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to upskill cancer clinicians and improve systems to provide smoking cessation brief interventions as part of routine clinical practice. All cancer care clinicians should complete brief intervention smoking cessation training relevant to the cancer context, including making referrals to Quitline, and be supported by systems to record and follow-up care.

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: An Updated Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Combustible tobacco use has reached historic lows, demonstrating the importance of proven strategies to reduce smoking since publication of the 1964 Surgeon General's report. In contrast, the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), specifically e-cigarettes, has grown to alarming rates and threatens to hinder progress against tobacco use. A major concern is ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. While ENDS emit fewer carcinogens than combustible tobacco, preliminary evidence links ENDS use to DNA damage and inflammation, key steps in cancer development. Furthermore, high levels of nicotine can also increase addiction, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development, and suppress the immune system. The magnitude of long-term health risks will remain unknown until longitudinal studies are completed. ENDS have been billed as a promising tool for combustible tobacco cessation, but further evidence is needed to assess their potential efficacy for adults who smoke. Of concern, epidemiological studies estimate that approximately 15% to 42% of adults who use ENDS have never used another tobacco product, and another 36% to 54% "dual use" both ENDS and combustible tobacco. This policy statement details advances in science related to ENDS and calls for urgent action to end predatory practices of the tobacco industry and protect public health. Importantly, we call for an immediate ban on all non-tobacco-flavored ENDS products that contain natural or synthetic nicotine to reduce ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. Concurrently, evidence-based treatments to promote smoking cessation and prevent smoking relapse to reduce cancer incidence and improve public health remain top priorities for our organizations. We also recognize there is an urgent need for research to understand the relationship between ENDS and tobacco-related disparities.

Building staff capability, opportunity, and motivation to provide smoking cessation to people with cancer in Australian cancer treatment centres: development of an implementation intervention framework for the Care to Quit cluster randomised controlled trial

Few rigorous studies provide a clear description of the methodological approach of developing an evidence-based implementation intervention, prior to implementation at scale. This study describes the development, mapping, rating, and review of the implementation strategies for the Care to Quit smoking cessation trial, prior to application in nine cancer services across Australia. Key stakeholders were engaged in the process from conception through to rating, reviewing and refinement of strategies and principles. An initial scoping review identified 21 barriers to provision of evidence-based smoking cessation care to patients with cancer, which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify relevant intervention functions. The mapping identified 26 relevant behaviour change techniques, summarised into 11 implementation strategies. The implementation strategies were rated and reviewed against the BCW Affordability, Practicality, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, and Equity criteria by key stakeholders during two interactive workshops to facilitate a focus on feasible interventions likely to resonate with clinical staff. The implementation strategies and associated intervention tools were then collated by form and function to provide a practical guide for implementing the intervention. This study illustrates the rigorous use of theories and frameworks to arrive at a practical intervention guide, with potential to inform future replication and scalability of evidence-based implementation across a range of health service settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10742-022-00288-6.

Study protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0]

BACKGROUND

Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings.

METHODS/DESIGN

This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

Point of care tobacco treatment sustains during COVID-19, a global pandemic

BACKGROUND

Tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients is essential to providing comprehensive oncologic care. We have implemented a point of care tobacco treatment care model enabled by electronic health record (EHR) modifications in a comprehensive cancer center. Data are needed on the sustainability of both reach of treatment and effectiveness over time, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Using EHR data from the pre-implementation (P: 5 months) and post-implementation periods (6 month-blocks, T1-T5 for a total of 30 months), we compared two primary outcomes: 1) reach of treatment among those smoking and 2) effectiveness assessed by smoking cessation among those smoking in the subsequent 6 month period. We analyzed the data using generalized estimation equation regression models.

RESULTS

With the point of care tobacco treatment care model, reach of treatment increased from pre to post T5 (3.2 % vs. 48.4 %, RR 15.50, 95 % CI 10.56-22.74, p < 0.0001). Reach of treatment in all post periods (T1-T5 including the COVID-19 pandemic time) remained significantly higher than the pre period. Effectiveness, defined by smoking cessation among those smoking, increased from pre to post T2 before the pandemic (12.4 % vs. 21.4 %, RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.31-1.87, p < 0.0001). However, effectiveness, while higher in later post periods (T3, T4), was no longer significantly increased compared with the pre period.

CONCLUSION

A point of care EHR-enabled tobacco treatment care model demonstrates sustained reach up to 30 months following implementation, even during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in healthcare prioritization. Effectiveness was sustained for 12 months, but did not sustain through the subsequent 12 months.

Feasibility of Patient Navigation-Based Smoking Cessation Program in Cancer Patients

Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis is causally associated with increased risks of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality, and of smoking-related second primary cancers. Patient navigation provides individualized assistance to address barriers to smoking cessation treatment and represents a promising bridge to smoking cessation in persons with cancer who smoke cigarettes. We conducted a single-arm interventional cohort study of current smokers identified through prospective health record screening and recruited from Penn State Cancer Institute outpatient clinics. Consented participants received two telephone intervention sessions and gain-framed messaging-based smoking cessation educational materials designed for persons with cancer. The primary study outcome was the feasibility of the patient navigation-based intervention; the secondary outcome was the engagement in smoking cessation treatment at the two-month follow-up. Of 1168 unique screened Cancer Institute patients, 134 (11.5%) were identified as current cigarette smokers. Among 67 patients approached at outpatient clinics, 24 (35.8%) were interested in participating, 12 (17.9%) were enrolled, eight (11.9%) completed the intervention sessions and study assessments, and six engaged in smoking cessation treatment. The participants expressed satisfaction with the intervention sessions (median = 8.5, scale 0–10). The low recruitment rates preclude patient navigation as a feasible method for connecting cancer patients to smoking cessation treatment resources.

Smoking Cessation Training and Treatment: Options for Cancer Centres

Patients who achieve smoking cessation following a cancer diagnosis can experience an improvement in treatment response and lower morbidity and mortality compared to individuals who continue to smoke. It is therefore imperative for publicly funded cancer centres to provide appropriate training and education for healthcare providers (HCP) and treatment options to support smoking cessation for their patients. However, system-, practitioner-, and patient-level barriers exist that hamper the integration of evidence-based cessation programs within publicly funded cancer centres. The integration of evidence-based smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy into cancer care facilities could have a significant effect on smoking cessation and cancer treatment outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to describe the elements of a learning health system for smoking cessation, implemented and scaled up in community settings that can be adapted for ambulatory cancer clinics. The core elements include appropriate workflows enabled by technology, thereby improving both practitioner and patient experience and effectively removing practitioner-level barriers to program implementation. Integrating the smoking cessation elements of this program from primary care to cancer centres could improve smoking cessation outcomes in patients attending cancer clinics.

Has the National Fall in Smoking Rates in Ireland Been Replicated in Cancer Patients? A 5-Year Report

Smoking among cancer patients leads to poorer outcomes, yet many patients continue smoking. As part of a feasibility study of smoking cessation for cancer patients in Ireland, smoking rates were reviewed. Hospital Inpatient Enquiry (HIPE) data on the smoking status of discharges with a cancer diagnosis (overall, breast, lung, cervical and head and neck cancer) were used (2014–2018). During 2014–2017, current smoking increased for overall (10.5–11.7%) and lung cancer (24.7–27.2%), then decreased to 11.4% and 24.1%, respectively, in 2018. Current smoking increased for cervical during 2014–2018 (11–19.8%) and initially (2014–2016) for head and neck (3–12.7%) cancer, decreasing to 7.6% in 2018; breast cancer was stable at 6 ± 0.6%. These rates are lower than the Irish (23–20%) and European (29% (average)) general population. During 2014–2017, past smoking increased among overall (15.2–21%) and specific cancers, which was lower than the Irish general population (23–28%). Current smoking was highest among 50–59-year-olds (14–16%), which contrasts with the Irish general population (24–35 years at 32–28%). HIPE data are subject to potential duplicate episodes of care and under-documentation of smoking. However, trend analysis is useful, as these limitations should be stable. Rates remain high; therefore, robust documentation and smoking cessation referrals for cancer patients are important.

Implementation strategies for integrating tobacco cessation treatment in cancer care: A qualitative study

Purpose

The objective of this study was to determine how to optimize implementation of tobacco cessation treatment interventions in cancer care by (1) investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-level approach to tobacco cessation treatment intervention, (2) identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (3) eliciting additional strategies to improve implementation of the intervention.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with oncologists (n = 15) from one large academic health center in the Southeastern United States. We asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and current practices regarding tobacco use screening and treatment. We also asked about two proposed strategies to support implementation of tobacco cessation treatment: (1) developing a registry of tobacco users in collaboration with the state-run tobacco cessation program, and (2) providing on-site tobacco cessation counseling from trained professionals.

Results

Oncologists saw addressing tobacco use as valuable; however, they felt restricted from consistently addressing tobacco use by multi-level barriers such as workload, electronic health record (EHR) design, patient anxiety, and low self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence. Oncologists responded positively to on-site treatment and felt this strategy would increase treatment accessibility and enhance engagement. Reaction to developing a registry of tobacco users was mixed, with concerns regarding lack of oncologist involvement and patient privacy expressed. Other suggested strategies for supporting implementation of tobacco cessation treatment included reducing referral complexity, establishing financial or quality incentives for oncologists, and leveraging existing EHR tools to facilitate integration of cessation interventions into clinic workflows.

Conclusion

We identified several challenges to implementing tobacco use treatment in cancer care; however, we considered strategies to overcome these barriers that were viewed as feasible and acceptable. Our work highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in implementation efforts. Future work should explore the impact of the implementation strategies identified in this study.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smokers with Acute Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An International Survey

INTRODUCTION

Smoking prevalence is twice as high among patients admitted to hospital because of the acute condition of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) as in the general population. Smoking cessation may improve the prognosis of aSAH, but nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) administered at the time of aSAH remains controversial because of potential adverse effects such as cerebral vasospasm. We investigated the international practice of NRT use for aSAH among neurosurgeons.

METHODS

The online SurveyMonkey software was used to administer a 15-question, 5-min online questionnaire. An invitation link was sent to those 1425 of 1988 members of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) who agreed to participate in surveys to assess treatment strategies for withdrawal of tobacco smoking during aSAH. Factors contributing to physicians' posture towards NRT were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 158 physicians from 50 nations participated in the survey (response rate 11.1%); 68.4% (108) were affiliated with university hospitals and 67.7% (107) practiced at high-volume neurovascular centers with at least 30 treated aSAH cases per year. Overall, 55.7% (88) of physicians offered NRT to smokers with aSAH, 22.1% (35) offered non-NRT support including non-nicotine medication and counselling, while the remaining 22.1% (35) did not actively support smoking cessation. When smoking was not possible, 42.4% (67) of physicians expected better clinical outcomes when prescribing NRT instead of nicotine deprivation, 36.1% (57) were uncertain, 13.9% (22) assumed unaffected outcomes, and 7.6% (12) assumed worse outcomes. Only 22.8% (36) physicians had access to a local smoking cessation team in their practice, of whom half expected better outcomes with NRT as compared to deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

A small majority of the surveyed physicians of the EANS offered NRT to support smoking cessation in hospitalized patients with aSAH. However, less than half believed that NRT could positively impact clinical outcome as compared to deprivation. This survey demonstrated the lack of consensus regarding use of NRT for hospitalized smokers with aSAH.

Implementation Science to Improve Tobacco Cessation Services in Oncology Care

Every patient with cancer deserves access to evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions as part of their routine oncology care. The NCI Cancer Moonshot funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) to help establish and/or expand tobacco treatment programs at 52 NCI-designated Cancer Centers. Although this initiative has broadened the availability of tobacco treatment services across US cancer centers, the reach and utilization of these services remains low among patients. To help address the remaining gap between the availability and utilization of evidence-based treatments for tobacco use in the oncologic context, staff and investigators at C3I sites and the C3I Coordinating Center formed the C3I Implementation Science Working Group. The mission of this working group is to bring together clinicians, scientists, and policymakers who share a common interest in implementation science and treating tobacco use in the oncologic context to collaborate on projects aimed at shrinking the practice gap in this area. Through case study examples, we describe how the C3I Implementation Science Working Group is supporting efforts to identify effective ways to increase the utilization of evidence-based tobacco treatments within cancer treatment settings and promote the broader impact and long-term sustainability of C3I.

Characteristics of tobacco consumption among cancer patients at a tertiary cancer hospital in South India-A cross-sectional study

Introduction

Cancer patients commonly present with antecedent addiction to tobacco consumption. Our study describes the characteristics of this substance use. Following the diagnosis of cancer, continued consumption of tobacco results in reduced tolerance to treatment, failure of treatment, tumor progression, other primary tumors, secondary cancers, and poor quality of life. The aim of our study is to enumerate the clinico-social aspects of tobacco consumption among cancer patients.

Methods

This cross-sectional study includes 100 cancer patients admitted to Healthcare Global cancer hospital, Bangalore, India. The study subjects were assessed for tobacco consumption, as well as other substance use such as intake of alcohol. We assessed various dimensions of exposure to tobacco consumption such as duration, intensity, and cumulative dose as independent risk factors for cancer.

Results

Among the study subjects, 46.2% were found to smoke filter cigarettes. The mean duration of tobacco consumption among beedi users was found to be longer (25.9 years, SD: 14.4). When stratified for exclusive consumption, the mean durations were as follows: beedis (29 ± 14.4 years), cigarettes (23.8 ± 13.3 years), and chewing (15.9 ± 9.6 years). Along with tobacco, a large proportion (59.3%) of patients consumed alcohol as well. After attempts to quit, 89.01% patients had reversal of tobacco substance use. The data did not show significance for duration, intensity, and cumulative dose of tobacco consumption.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of cancer is a life-altering event, which results in higher motivation to quit the use of tobacco. Smoking cessation initiatives can reduce the risk of developing tobacco-related malignancies.

Time to put it out - nurse-facilitated tobacco treatment in a comprehensive cancer center

Few cancer patients receive guideline-concordant care for treatment of tobacco dependence. The purpose of this pilot trial was to obtain preliminary estimates of effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention on the delivery of tobacco treatment and cessation outcomes in cancer patients. We conducted a pragmatic implementation trial with a before-after design in 119 current or recently quit adult smokers with cancer who met with a clinician at a single National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center (CCC) (n = 61 pre-implementation, n = 58 post-implementation). We used a multi-component strategy based on the Chronic Care Model to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation counseling during the index visit was assessed by exit interview and patients were interviewed by phone to assess cessation outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Performance of cessation counseling and 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) were compared across the pre- and post-implementation periods using log-logistic regression, accounting for clustering by nursing staff. More patients had received assistance in quitting at the index visit during the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (30 vs. 10%, p < .01). At 3-month follow-up, 38 and 14% of participants had discussed smoking cessation medication with a CCC healthcare professional and 57 and 27% of participants had used pharmacotherapy, respectively (p < .01 for both comparisons). Seven-day PPA at 3-month follow-up was similar in both periods, however (14 vs. 12%, respectively). A multi-component tobacco treatment intervention increased the proportion of smokers who received assistance in quitting smoking during usual cancer care but did not improve cessation outcomes.

Care-paradigm shift promoting smoking cessation treatment among cancer center patients via a low-burden strategy, Electronic Health Record-Enabled Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment

Tobacco smoking is an important risk factor for cancer incidence, an effect modifier for cancer treatment, and a negative prognostic factor for disease outcomes. Inadequate implementation of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in cancer centers, a consequence of numerous patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers, contributes to tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. This study provides data for a paradigm shift from a frequently used specialist referral model to a point-of-care treatment model for tobacco use assessment and cessation treatment for outpatients at a large cancer center. The point-of-care model is enabled by a low-burden strategy, the Electronic Health Record-Enabled Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment program, which was implemented in the cancer center clinics on June 2, 2018. Five-month pre- and post-implementation data from the electronic health record (EHR) were analyzed. The percentage of cancer patients assessed for tobacco use significantly increased from 48% to 90% (z = 126.57, p < .001), the percentage of smokers referred for cessation counseling increased from 0.72% to 1.91% (z = 3.81, p < .001), and the percentage of smokers with cessation medication significantly increased from 3% to 17% (z = 17.20, p < .001). EHR functionalities may significantly address barriers to point-of-care treatment delivery, improving its consistent implementation and thereby increasing access to and quality of smoking cessation care for cancer center patients.

Rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve tobacco treatment rates for cancer patients who smoke

BACKGROUND

Routine evidence-based tobacco use treatment minimizes cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and improves quality of life among patients receiving cancer care. Few cancer centers employ mechanisms to systematically refer patients to evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics can increase tobacco use treatment engagement within oncology care.

METHODS

A four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial will be conducted across nine clinical sites within the Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control Implementation Lab to compare the effect of behavioral economic implementation strategies delivered through embedded messages (or "nudges") promoting patient engagement with the Tobacco Use Treatment Service (TUTS). Nudges are electronic medical record (EMR)-based messages delivered to patients, clinicians, or both, designed to counteract known patient and clinician biases that reduce treatment engagement. We used rapid cycle approaches (RCA) informed by relevant stakeholder experiences to refine and optimize our implementation strategies and methods prior to trial initiation. Data will be obtained via the EMR, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients. The primary measure of implementation is penetration, defined as the TUTS referral rate. Secondary outcome measures of implementation include patient treatment engagement (defined as the number of patients who receive FDA-approved medication or behavioral counseling), quit attempts, and abstinence rates. The semi-structured interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, will assess contextual factors and patient and clinician experiences with the nudges.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first in the oncology setting to compare the effectiveness of nudges to clinicians and patients, both head-to-head and in combination, as implementation strategies to improve TUTS referral and engagement. We expect the study to (1) yield insights into the effectiveness of nudges as an implementation strategy to improve uptake of evidence-based tobacco use treatment within cancer care, and (2) advance our understanding of the multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. These results will lay the foundation for how patients with cancer who smoke are best engaged in tobacco use treatment and may lead to future research focused on scaling this approach across diverse centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04737031 . Registered 3 February 2021.

It Takes Two to Tango: Patients' and Providers' Perspectives in Tobacco Cessation and Head/Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Tobacco cessation among patients with head/neck cancer continues to be challenging despite evidence that cessation improves treatment outcomes. The purpose of this study was to understand barriers/facilitators to tobacco cessation among patients with head/neck cancer and health care providers and to obtain perspectives toward the development of a patient-centered tobacco cessation intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews with 10 health care providers and 21 patients with head/neck cancer (12 inpatients and 9 outpatients) who were current or former smokers.

RESULTS

Health was a common motivator to quit among patients. Although most patients indicated that their health care provider asked and advised them to quit, they were unaware of cessation resources. Suggestions for a tobacco cessation program included involvement of former smokers, health care provider involvement/counseling, supporting written materials, and incorporating follow-up and family support. Health care providers identified patients' anger/frustration associated with the disease, social/demographic issues, and poor quality of life as the three most frequent challenges in treating patients. Although all providers reported asking about tobacco use, 70% emphasized a lack of formal training in tobacco cessation and lack of time. Their suggestions for a cessation program included having a "quarterback" responsible for this component with support from the entire health care team and continuity between outpatient and inpatient services to promote cessation, prevent relapse, and highlight the importance of follow-up and social support.

CONCLUSION

There is great interest and need, both from patients and providers, for tobacco cessation services in the oncology setting tailored for patients with head/neck cancer in the context of cancer care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although the combination of pharmacotherapy and cognitive-behavioral intervention is the standard evidence-based treatment for tobacco dependence, it must be adapted to meet the needs and wants of patients and providers to be effective. This study provides an in-depth examination of such needs among patients with head and neck cancer and providers in the context of cancer care. Providers and patients emphasized the need of having a trained health care provider dedicated to providing tobacco cessation through seamless integration between outpatient and inpatient services as well as follow-up with an emphasis on family involvement throughout the process.

Reach versus effectiveness: The design and protocol of randomized clinical trial testing a smartphone application versus in-person mindfulness-based smoking cessation intervention among young cancer survivors

Approximately 45% of young cancer survivors (18-40 years) are cigarette smokers. Continued smoking after cancer diagnosis leads to lower survival rates. A major logistical problem with smoking cessation efforts in this group is their geographic dispersion which makes them hard to reach. In addition, depression is a major predictor of smoking relapse and its rates are roughly twice as high in cancer survivors as the general population. Smartphone applications (apps) show promise in terms of efficacy, dissemination, and improving access to treatment. Mindfulness training (defined as maintaining attention on one's immediate experience and cultivating an attitude of acceptance toward this experience) is effective in improving smoking cessation outcomes by reducing psychological stress and controlling craving. Given that smartphone apps can address the issues of mobility and remote access, and mindfulness can address the high depression rate among cancer survivors, validating the feasibility and efficacy of a mindfulness-based smoking cessation intervention app in young cancer survivors is a high priority. Thus, the aims of the current study are: (1) test the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of the mindfulness-based smoking cessation app versus in-person mindfulness or usual care in a 3-arm pilot randomized clinical trial among young cancer survivors (n = 60; 18-40 years); and 2) conduct semi-structured exit interviews with participants in the two mindfulness groups to fine-tune the two active interventions based on feedback from participants. Findings will have implications for the development and dissemination of innovative and highly scalable tobacco cessation interventions designed for young cancer survivors.

Interest in Cessation Treatment Among People Who Smoke in a Community-Based Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the need for tobacco cessation services within a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC), we surveyed patients on their smoking status, interest in quitting, and willingness to participate in a clinic-based cessation program. We further evaluated the association between interest in cessation or willingness to participate in a cessation program and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, all new patients with lung cancer in the MDC at Baptist Cancer Center (Memphis, TN) were administered a social history questionnaire to evaluate their demographic characteristics, smoking status, tobacco dependence, interest in quitting, and willingness to participate in a cessation program. We used chi-square tests and logistic regression to compare characteristics of those who would participate to those who would not or were unsure and Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression to evaluate the association between cessation interest or willingness to quit and OS.

RESULTS

Of 641 total respondents, the average age was 69 years (range: 32-95), 47% were men, 64% white, 34% black, and 17% college graduates. A total of 90% had ever smoked: 34% currently and 25% quit within the past year. Among the current smokers, 60% were very interested in quitting and 37% would participate in a cessation program. Willingness to participate in a cessation program was associated with greater interest in quitting (p < 0.0001), better OS (p = 0.02), and reduced hazard of death (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.88), but no other characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with lung cancer in an MDC expressed considerable interest in tobacco cessation services; patients willing to participate in a clinic-based cessation program had improved survival.

Training oncology care providers in the assessment and treatment of tobacco use and dependence

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for promoting smoking cessation in cancer care exist; however, most oncology settings have not established tobacco use assessment and treatment as standard care. Inadequate staff training and other implementation challenges have been identified as barriers for delivery of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Providing training in tobacco treatment tailored to the unique needs of tobacco-dependent patients with cancer is one strategy to improve adoption of best practices to promote smoking cessation in cancer care.

METHODS

A tobacco treatment training program for oncology care providers (tobacco treatment training-oncology [TTT-O]) consisting of a 2-day didactic and experiential workshop followed by 6 monthly, collaboratory videoconference calls supporting participants in their efforts to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in their oncology settings was developed and implemented. This article presents preliminary results on program evaluation, changes in participants' self-efficacy, and progress in implementing tobacco treatment.

RESULTS

Data have been obtained from the first 5 cohorts of TTT-O participants (n = 110) who completed training, course evaluations, baseline and follow-up surveys. Participants rated the training as highly favorable and reported significant gains in self-efficacy in their ability to assess and treat tobacco dependence. Participants also demonstrated significant improvements in tobacco treatment skills and implementation of several indicators of improved adoption of best practices for tobacco treatment in their cancer care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of tobacco treatment training for cancer care providers is feasible, acceptable, and can have a significant positive impact on participants' tobacco treatment skills, self-efficacy, and greater adoption of tobacco treatment delivery in cancer care.

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.

Care to Quit: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking in people with cancer is associated with negative treatment-related outcomes including increased treatment toxicity and complications, medication side effects, decreased performance status and morbidity. Evidence-based smoking cessation care is not routinely provided to patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a smoking cessation implementation intervention on abstinence from smoking in people diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

A stepped wedge cluster randomised design will be used. All sites begin in the control condition providing treatment as usual. In a randomly generated order, sites will move to the intervention condition. Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, implementation of Care to Quit will include (i) building the capability and motivation of a critical mass of key clinical staff and identifying champions; and (ii) identifying and implementing cessation care models/pathways. Two thousand one hundred sixty patients with cancer (diagnosed in the prior six months), aged 18+, who report recent combustible tobacco use (past 90 days or in the 30 days prior to cancer diagnosis) and are accessing anti-cancer therapy, will be recruited at nine sites. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 7-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be 6-month abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes include biochemical verification of abstinence from smoking, duration of quit attempts, tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, provision and receipt of smoking cessation care, mental health and quality of life and cost effectiveness of the intervention.

DISCUSSION

This study will implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres and has the potential for wide dissemination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN ( ACTRN12621000154808 ) prior to the accrual of the first participant and will be updated regularly as per registry guidelines.

The characteristics of patients who quit smoking in the year following a cancer diagnosis

PURPOSE

Continued tobacco smoking following a cancer diagnosis is associated with adverse outcomes. Our study aims to identify the demographic and clinical characteristics of survivors who quit smoking within a year of diagnosis.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the Measuring Your Health (MY-Health) study, a community-based survey cohort of 5506 cancer patients registered across four Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries. Using surveys completed 6-13 months after diagnosis, we identified 868 participants who reported smoking around the time of cancer diagnosis and compared their current smoking status. We employed logistic regression models to predict current smoking status, adjusting for clinical and demographic variables.

RESULTS

The overall smoking cessation rate was 35% (n = 306). Survivors with non-small cell lung cancer were three times more likely to quit smoking compared to patients with non-smoking-related cancers (aOR = 3.23, 95% CI = 2.20-4.74). Participants with advanced stage cancer reported higher odds of quitting compared to those with localized cancer (aOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.02-1.96). Other characteristics that predicted quitting included being married, higher education level, and female sex (aOR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.46-2.77; aOR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.27-2.39; aOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.11-2.13, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to examine smoking cessation trends in a community-based, US cancer cohort during the year after diagnosis. Survivors with lung cancer and advanced cancer were significantly more likely to quit smoking.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Practitioners may use this knowledge to target interventions and address substantial disparities in cessation rates among survivors with early stage and non-lung cancers.

Cross-sectional survey for assessing cancer care providers' characteristics and attitudes on smoking cessation in Colombia and Mexico

OBJECTIVE

Cancer care providers' (CCPs) attitudes towards smoking cessation are influenced by many factors, including their smoking status and knowledge. Our objective was to assess CCPs' characteristics, tobacco use and smoking cessation practices in two Latin American cancer centres.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTINGS

Two urban cancer centres located in Colombia and Mexico.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 238 CCPs.

MEASURES

Online survey consisted of 28 close-ended questions adapted from the 2012 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer survey and the Global Adult Tobacco Survey developed by the WHO. Means, frequencies and proportions were reported for each country. Factors associated to providing of smoking cessation treatment or referral at initial visit were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Current smoking prevalence was 10.5% and 12.3% among Colombian and Mexican CCPs, respectively. Around three quarters of the Colombian (86.4%) and Mexican CCPs (66.1%) considered to have inadequate training in smoking cessation. Approximately two-thirds of Colombian (67.5%) and Mexican CCPs (63.9%) reported always or most of the time asking patients about tobacco use during the initial visit. In Colombia and Mexico, the most relevant barriers for providing cessation services were (1) difficulties for motivating patients with cancer, (2) patient resistance in quitting smoking, (3) lack of local resources or referral centres for smoking cessation and (4) lack of training in smoking cessation. CCPs appointed at Instituto Nacional de Cancerología were less likely to provide cessation treatment or referral to their patients if they had less than 50% of their time devoted to patient care and were former or current smokers. The regression model for Instituto de Cancerología did not retain statistically significant variables.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight an urgent need for assisting Latin American CCPs in their quitting efforts as well as expanding formal smoking cessation training specifically tailored to these professionals for improving patients' cancer prognosis and quality of life.

Tobacco Use and Treatment among Cancer Survivors

Tobacco use is causally associated with the risk of developing multiple health conditions, including over a dozen types of cancer, and is responsible for 30% of cancer deaths in the U [...].

Smoking Cessation at a Safety-Net Hospital: A Radiation Oncology Resident-Led Quality Improvement Initiative

Purpose

Continued smoking among patients with cancer has been associated with increased toxicities, resistance to treatment, and recurrence. This resident-led quality improvement study attempted to increase smoking cessation by providing free smoking cessation medications in the radiation oncology clinic.

Methods and Materials

Twenty currently smoking patients with nonmetastatic cancer were prospectively enrolled. First line treatment was protocol-standardized combined nicotine replacement therapy (patches and lozenges). Therapy was initiated before radiation therapy and given for 12 weeks. Patient self-reported tobacco use was assessed at midtreatment, end of 12-week treatment, 3-month follow-up, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up.

Results

Within the initial cohort of 20 patients, average years smoked was 36.3 years (median = 37.5). In addition, 85% had attempted to quit previously. Among patients initially enrolled, 3 did not initiate radiation therapy, and 4 were removed from the study by midtreatment due to noncompliance. Midway through treatment, patients had cut self-reported cigarette use to 31% of baseline. However, 75% or more of patients had smoked within the last week at all timepoints assessed. With further follow-up, the number of cigarettes smoked daily continued to rise, reaching 61% of baseline by the 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions

Patients reduced cigarette consumption, but all patients eventually resumed smoking during the 12-month follow-up. Although it is unfortunate that this study did not result in long-term smoking cessation, the results demonstrate the difficulties faced in helping patients with cancer quit, particularly patients seen at a safety-net hospital. Future efforts could be directed at intensified smoking cessation programs, likely incorporating a more standardized counseling component.

Impact of a tobacco treatment program on abstinence and survival rates among current smokers with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Approximately one quarter of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients smoke cigarettes at the time of diagnosis. Despite HNC guideline recommendations to treat tobacco dependence, the effectiveness of treatment in this population is poorly described.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort review evaluated 117 current smokers with p16-negative mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma prospectively enrolled in a tobacco treatment program. Seven-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence rates at 9 months and survival outcomes were compared among abstinent and nonabstinent groups.

RESULTS

Median follow-up among survivors was 62.4 months. Forty percent of patients were abstinent at 9 months according to intention-to-treat analysis. After adjustment for age, comorbidity and site, abstinent stage I to II patients had a decreased risk of death compared to smoking stage I to II patients (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

High cohort abstinence rates and favorable survival among abstinent patients with early-stage HNC confirm the importance of tobacco dependence treatment in this population.