Tobacco Use Assessment and Treatment in Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review of Oncology Care Clinician Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines in the U.S

Effect of smoking on prostate cancer: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2018 and Mendelian randomization analyses

INTRODUCTION

The controversial relationship between smoking and prostate cancer (PCa) risk prompted us to conduct a cross-sectional study using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database and apply Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses in order to clarify the possible causal effect of smoking on PCa risk.

METHODS

Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods, a secondary analysis of the pooled 2003-2018 NHANES dataset was performed to explore the association between smoking and PCa risk. Propensity-score matching was used to reduce selection bias. Then, we conducted subsequent MR analysis study to investigate the potential causal effect of smoking on PCa risk, with genetic variants of four exposure factors including the lifetime smoking index, light smoking, smoking initiation, and the amount of smoking per day obtained from genome-wide association studies, and PCa summary statistics obtained from three database populations. Inverse-variance weighting was the primary analytical method, and weighted median and MR-Egger regression were used for sensitivity analyses. The MR results for the three PCa databases were combined using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The study included 16073 NHANES subjects, comprising 554 with PCa and 15519 without PCa. Logistic regression before and after matching did not reveal any significant association. Meta-analysis of the MR results also did not support an association of PCa risk with lifetime smoking index (OR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.83-1.09), light smoking (OR=1.00; 95% CI: 0.95-1.06), smoking initiation (OR=0.99, 95% CI=0.99-1.00), or the amount of smoking per day (OR=1.00; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00) and PCa risk.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence for an association between smoking and the risk of PCa. Further studies are needed to determine if there are any associations of other forms of smoking with the risk of PCa at different stages.

Effectiveness of a computer-facilitated intervention on improving provider delivery of tobacco treatment in a thoracic surgery and oncology outpatient setting: A pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Effective tobacco treatments are available but are often not delivered to individuals with an actual or potential diagnosis of thoracic malignancy. The specific aims of this study were to identify the prevalence of tobacco use and examine the effectiveness of the Clinical and community Effort Against Smoking and secondhand smoke Exposure (CEASE), a system-level computer-facilitated intervention, to improve provider delivery of tobacco treatment in a thoracic surgery and oncology outpatient setting.

METHODS

A pre-post-test design was used to assess the effectiveness of CEASE. A 3-step approach was used to integrate tobacco treatment into routine care: ask about tobacco use, assist with cessation, and refer to a quitline. An end-of-visit survey was conducted to collect prevalence of tobacco use and delivery of tobacco treatment. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 218 individuals were enrolled; 105 participants were in usual care (UC) and 113 were in the CEASE group. Of those who enrolled, 27.6% were never smokers in UC and 27.7% in CEASE, 60% were former smokers in UC and 50% in CEASE, and 12.4% were current smokers in UC and 21.4% in CEASE. Significant differences were noted in delivery of tobacco treatment with 15.4% having received tobacco treatment in UC compared to 62.5% in CEASE (p<0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

A computer-facilitated intervention increased provider delivery of tobacco treatment in a thoracic surgery and oncology outpatient setting. This intervention provided a low-resource approach that has the potential to be scaled and implemented more broadly.

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.

[Effect of Smoking on Cancer Surgery Outcomes and Recommendations for Perioperative Smoking Cessation Intervention]

Smoking, a common behavior that causes health risks among adults around the world, is closely associated with the risks of developing various kinds of cancers. Nevertheless, the impact of smoking on preoperative risks and postoperative outcomes of cancer surgeries has been largely overlooked. Extensive basic medical and clinical research findings and prognosis data demonstrate that smoking is associated with increased risks of multiple perioperative complications, and that smoking affects the general prognosis of patients. Smoking cessation during the preoperative and perioperative periods effectively reduces these risks and improves the long-term postoperative outcomes of cancer patients. At present, health workers and patients are not giving adequate attention to smoking cessation interventions and the quality of interventions available is poor. Herein, we discussed the necessity of comprehensive and standardized smoking cessation services and made recommendations regarding the implementation of comprehensive and standardized smoking cessation services, providing support for cancer patients to access evidence-based care during the perioperative period.

Stakeholder perceptions of using "opt-out" for tobacco use treatment in a cancer care setting: a qualitative evaluation of patients, providers, and desk staff

BACKGROUND

Continued tobacco use in cancer patients increases the risk of cancer treatment failure and decreases survival. However, currently, most cancer patients do not receive evidence-based tobacco treatment. A recently proposed "opt-out" approach would automatically refer all cancer patients who use tobacco to tobacco treatment, but its acceptability to cancer patients and providers is unknown. We aimed to understand stakeholder beliefs, concerns, and receptivity to using the "opt-out" approach for tobacco treatment referrals in a cancer care setting.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncology patients, providers, and desk staff. The sample size was determined when theoretical saturation was reached. Given the differences among participant roles, separate interview guides were developed. Transcripts were analyzed using standard coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Emergent codes were added to the codebook to account for themes not represented by a CFIR domain. Coded transcripts were then entered into the qualitative analysis software NVivo to generate code reports for CFIR domains and emergent codes for each stakeholder group. Data were presented by stakeholder group and subcategorized by CFIR domains and emergent codes when appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 21 providers, 19 patients, and 6 desk staff were interviewed. Overall acceptance of the "opt out" approach was high among all groups. Providers overwhelmingly approved of the approach as it requires little effort from them to operate and saves clinical time. Desk staff supported the opt-out system and believed there are clinical benefits to patients receiving information about tobacco treatment. Many patients expressed support for using an opt-out approach as many smokers need assistance but may not directly ask for it. Patients also thought that providers emphasizing the benefits of stopping tobacco use to cancer treatment and survival would be an important factor motivating them to attend treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While providers appreciated that the system required little effort on their part, patients clearly indicated that promotion of tobacco cessation treatment by their provider would be vital to enhance willingness to engage with treatment. Future implementation efforts of opt-out systems will require implementation strategies that promote provider engagement with their patients around smoking cessation while continuing to limit burden on providers.

Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial

Cigarette smoking is highly prevalent among cancer patients in the United States (US), with up to half of cancer patients smoking at the time of their initial cancer diagnosis. However, evidence-based cessation programs are rarely implemented in oncology care, and smoking is not consistently treated in cancer treatment settings. Consequently, there is an urgent need for accessible and efficacious cessation treatments that are uniquely tailored to the needs of cancer patients. Here we describe the design and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of a smartphone app (Quit2Heal) versus a US Clinical Practice Guidelines-based app (QuitGuide) for smoking cessation among a planned sample of 422 cancer patients. Quit2Heal is designed to address cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting. Quit2Heal is based on the principles of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, a behavioral therapy that teaches skills for accepting cravings to smoke without smoking, values-driven motivation to quit, and preventing relapse. The primary aim of the RCT is to determine whether Quit2Heal has significantly higher self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months relative to QuitGuide. The trial will also determine whether Quit2Heal's effect on cessation is (1) mediated by improvements in cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting; and (2) moderated by baseline factors (e.g., cancer type, stage, time since diagnosis). If successful, Quit2Heal will offer a more efficacious, broadly scalable smoking cessation treatment that could be implemented alongside existing oncology care, thereby improving cancer outcomes.

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.

Monitoring the Implementation of Tobacco Cessation Support Tools: Using Novel Electronic Health Record Activity Metrics

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support (CDS) tools in electronic health records (EHRs) are often used as core strategies to support quality improvement programs in the clinical setting. Monitoring the impact (intended and unintended) of these tools is crucial for program evaluation and adaptation. Existing approaches for monitoring typically rely on health care providers' self-reports or direct observation of clinical workflows, which require substantial data collection efforts and are prone to reporting bias.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a novel monitoring method leveraging EHR activity data and demonstrate its use in monitoring the CDS tools implemented by a tobacco cessation program sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I).

METHODS

We developed EHR-based metrics to monitor the implementation of two CDS tools: (1) a screening alert reminding clinic staff to complete the smoking assessment and (2) a support alert prompting health care providers to discuss support and treatment options, including referral to a cessation clinic. Using EHR activity data, we measured the completion (encounter-level alert completion rate) and burden (the number of times an alert was fired before completion and time spent handling the alert) of the CDS tools. We report metrics tracked for 12 months post implementation, comparing 7 cancer clinics (2 clinics implemented the screening alert and 5 implemented both alerts) within a C3I center, and identify areas to improve alert design and adoption.

RESULTS

The screening alert fired in 5121 encounters during the 12 months post implementation. The encounter-level alert completion rate (clinic staff acknowledged completion of screening in EHR: 0.55; clinic staff completed EHR documentation of screening results: 0.32) remained stable over time but varied considerably across clinics. The support alert fired in 1074 encounters during the 12 months. Providers acted upon (ie, not postponed) the support alert in 87.3% (n=938) of encounters, identified a patient ready to quit in 12% (n=129) of encounters, and ordered a referral to the cessation clinic in 2% (n=22) of encounters. With respect to alert burden, on average, both alerts fired over 2 times (screening alert: 2.7; support alert: 2.1) before completion; time spent postponing the screening alert was similar to completing (52 vs 53 seconds) the alert, and time spent postponing the support alert was more than completing (67 vs 50 seconds) the alert per encounter. These findings inform four areas where the alert design and use can be improved: (1) improving alert adoption and completion through local adaptation, (2) improving support alert efficacy by additional strategies including training in provider-patient communication, (3) improving the accuracy of tracking for alert completion, and (4) balancing alert efficacy with the burden.

CONCLUSIONS

EHR activity metrics were able to monitor the success and burden of tobacco cessation alerts, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of potential trade-offs associated with alert implementation. These metrics can be used to guide implementation adaptation and are scalable across diverse settings.

Using information technology to integrate tobacco use treatment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative Cancer Centers

Background

Cancer patients who receive evidence-based tobacco-dependence treatment are more likely to quit and remain abstinent, but tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) are not consistently offered. In 2017, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, through the Cancer Moonshot, funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). C3I supports 52 cancer centers to implement and expand evidence-based tobacco treatment in routine oncology care. Integration into routine care involves the use of health information technology (IT), including modifying electronic health records and clinical workflows. Here, we examine C3I cancer centers' IT leadership involvement and experiences in tobacco-dependence treatment implementation.

Method

This qualitative study of C3I-funded cancer centers integrated data from online surveys and in-person, semistructured interviews with IT leaders. We calculated descriptive statistics of survey data and applied content analysis to interview transcripts.

Results

Themes regarding IT personnel included suggestions to involve IT early, communicate regularly, understand the roles and influence of the IT team, and match program design with IT funding and resources. Themes regarding electronic health record (EHR) modifications included beginning modifications early to account for long lead time to make changes, working with IT to identify and adapt existing EHR tools for TTP or designing tools that will support a desired workflow developed with end-users, and working with IT personnel to make sure TTPs comply with system and state policies (e.g., privacy laws).

Conclusions

The experiences of C3I cancer centers regarding the use of health IT to enhance tobacco-dependence treatment program implementation can guide cancer centers and community oncology practices to potentially enhance TTP implementation and patient outcomes.

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.

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.

Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care-The New National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph

PURPOSE

Continued smoking after the diagnosis of cancer can markedly worsen oncology treatment side effects, cancer outcomes, cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality. Conversely, mounting evidence demonstrates that smoking cessation by patients with cancer improves outcomes. A cancer diagnosis often serves as a teachable moment, characterized by high motivation to quit. However, too few patients with cancer who smoke are offered evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, and too few engage in such treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The National Cancer Institute commissioned Tobacco Control Monograph 23, Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care, to review and synthesize the evidence that clarifies the need to intervene with smoking in cancer care.

RESULTS

Although many patients with newly diagnosed cancer who smoke make quit attempts, many of these are unsuccessful, and among those who successfully quit, relapse is common. Indeed, an estimated 12.2% of adults ever diagnosed with cancer reported they currently smoked (National Health Interview Survey, 2020). Patients with cancer who smoke are likely to benefit from smoking cessation treatments, including counseling and US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, and there are many effective strategies to increase delivery of smoking cessation treatment in cancer care settings.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation is among the most effective treatment options for improving the likelihood of survival, quality of life, and overall health of patients with cancer who smoke. It is important for cancer care clinicians and patients to realize that it is never too late to quit smoking and that there are clear benefits to doing so, regardless of cancer type.

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.

The Tobacco Endgame—A New Paradigm for Smoking Cessation in Cancer Clinics

Smoking cessation represents an untapped resource for cancer therapy. Many people who smoke and have cancer (tobacco-related or otherwise) struggle to quit and as a result, jeopardise response to treatment, recovery after surgery and long-term survival. Many health care practitioners working in cancer medicine feel undertrained, unprepared and unsupported to provide effective smoking cessation therapy. Many institutions and healthcare systems do provide smoking cessation programs, guidelines and referral pathways for cancer patients, but these may be unevenly applied. The growing body of evidence, from both retrospective and prospective clinical studies, confirms the benefit of smoking cessation and will provide much needed evidence for the best and most effective interventions in cancer clinics. In addition to reducing demand, helping cancer patients quit and treating addiction, a firm commitment to developing smoke free societies may transform cancer medicine in the future. While the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) has dominated global tobacco control for the last two decades, many jurisdictions are starting to develop plans to make their communities tobacco free, to introduce the tobacco endgame. Characterised by downward pressure on tobacco supply, limited sales, limited access and denormalization of smoking, these policies may radically change the milieu in which people with cancer receive treatment, in which health care practitioners refine skills and which may ultimately foster dramatic improvements in cancer outcomes.

Hospital-based tobacco treatment for inpatients with a history of cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment engagement and outcomes of patients who smoke with cancer and received tobacco cessation treatment during hospitalization.

METHOD

We analyzed treatment engagement and cessation outcomes for hospitalized patients who smoke with a current or former history of cancer receiving treatment from an inpatient tobacco treatment service between July, 2018 to October, 2019.

RESULTS

The service treated 407 inpatients. Patients had an overall high level of interest in quitting (7.6, 0-10 scale). One in three accepted cessation pharmacotherapies during hospitalization or at discharge (35%) and/or referral to the state tobacco quitline (37%). Of 189 patients reached at one-month post-discharge, 73 (39%) reported tobacco abstinence (18% intent to treat-ITT-quit rate); 35.5% had used cessation pharmacotherapy and 6.5% had engaged in quitline counseling. Of 151 patients reached at 6 months post-discharge, 29% reported abstinence (11%, ITT).

CONCLUSION

Inpatients with a history of cancer are interested in quitting. Post-discharge quit rates and pharmacotherapy use were high but quitline use was low. Hospitalization is an under-utilized, prime treatment opportunity and teachable moment for people with a history of cancer who continue to use tobacco.

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.

Operationalizing Leadership and Clinician Buy-In to Implement Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Programs in Routine Oncology Care: A Mixed-Method Study of the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

BACKGROUND

Delivering evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment in oncology settings improves smoking abstinence and cancer outcomes. Leadership engagement/buy-in is critical for implementation success, but few studies have defined buy-in or described how to secure buy-in for tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) in cancer care. This study examines buy-in during the establishment of tobacco treatment programs at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers.

METHODS

We utilized a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods approach to analyze quantitative data and qualitative interviews with program leads in the U.S.-based NCI Moonshot-supported Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (n = 20 Centers). We calculated descriptive statistics and applied structural coding and content analysis to qualitative data.

RESULTS

At least 75% of participating centers secured health care system administrative, clinical, and IT leadership buy-in and support. Six themes emerged from interviews: engaging leadership, access to resources, leveraging federal funding support to build leadership interest, designating champions, identifying training needs, and ensuring staff roles and IT systems support workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

Buy-in among staff and clinicians is defined by the belief that the TTP is necessary, valuable, and evidence based. Recognizing and securing these dimensions of buy-in can facilitate implementation success, leading to improved cancer outcomes.

Tobacco Use and Tobacco Treatment Referral Response of Patients With Cancer: Implementation Outcomes at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center

PURPOSE

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis is linked to cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, among other adverse outcomes. Yet, 10%-20% of US cancer survivors are current smokers. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco treatment in cancer care facilities is widely recommended, yet rarely accomplished. This study focuses on the early outcomes of a population-based tobacco treatment program integrated within an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The sample consists of 26,365 patients seen at the cancer center during the first 18 months of program implementation. The study is a retrospective chart review of patients' tobacco use and, among current users, patients' treatment referral response.

RESULTS

More than 99% of patients were screened for tobacco use. Current (past month) use was observed in 21.05% of patients; cigarettes were the most popular product. Only 17.22% of current users accepted a referral for tobacco treatment; among current users who declined, the majority were not ready to quit (65.84%) or wanted to quit on their own (27.01%). Multiple demographic variables were associated with tobacco use and treatment referral response outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite cancer diagnosis presenting a teachable moment for tobacco cessation, patients with cancer may not be ready to quit or engage with treatment. Clinically proven strategies to increase motivation, prompt quit attempts, and encourage treatment use should be key components of tobacco treatment delivery to patients with cancer.

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.

Achieving Equity in the Reach of Smoking Cessation Services Within the NCI Cancer Moonshot-Funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Background: Ensuring equitable access to smoking cessation services for cancer patients is necessary to avoid increasing disparities in tobacco use and cancer outcomes. In 2017, the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) funded National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Centers to integrate evidence-based smoking cessation programs into cancer care. We describe the progress of C3I Cancer Centers in expanding the reach of cessation services across cancer populations.

Methods: Cancer centers (n=17) reported on program characteristics and reach (the proportion of smokers receiving evidence-based cessation treatment) for two 6-month periods. Reach was calculated overall and by patient gender, race, ethnicity, and age.

Results: Average reach increased from 18.5% to 25.6% over 1 year. Reach increased for all racial/ethnic groups, and in particular for American Indian/Alaska Native (6.6–24.7%), Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (7.3–19.4%), and black (18.8–25.9%) smokers. Smaller gains in reach were observed among Hispanic smokers (19.0–22.8%), but these were similar to gains among non-Hispanic smokers (18.9–23.9%). By age group, smokers aged 18–24 years (6.6–14.5%) and >65 years (16.1–24.5%) saw the greatest increases in reach.

Conclusion: C3I Cancer Centers achieved gains in providing smoking cessation services to cancer patients who smoke, thereby reducing disparities that had existed across important subgroups. Taking a population-based approach to integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care has potential to increase reach equity. Implementation strategies including targeted and proactive outreach to patients and interventions to increase providers' adoption of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may advance reach even further.

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Assessing tobacco product use and delivering tobacco dependence treatment is an essential part of cancer care; however, little is known about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarette use assessment in cancer treatment settings. Given the importance of tailoring tobacco treatment, it is critical to understand how ENDS use is assessed in the electronic health record (EHR) in cancer care settings. Two questionnaires were completed by tobacco treatment program leads at 42 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, 2019). Items assessed how often smoking status and ENDS use were recorded in the EHR. An open-ended item recorded the text and response categories of each center's ENDS assessment question. All 42 centers assessed smoking status at both time periods. Twenty-five centers (59.5%) assessed ENDS use in the first half of 2019, increasing to 30 (71.4%) in the last half of 2019. By the end of 2019, 17 centers assessed smoking status at every patient visit while six assessed ENDS use at every visit. A checkbox/drop-down menu rather than scripted text was used at 30 centers (73.2%) for assessing smoking status and at 18 centers (42.9%) for assessing ENDS use. Our findings underscore the gap in systematic ENDS use screening in cancer treatment settings. Requiring ENDS use measures in the EHR as part of quality measures and providing scripted text scripts to providers may increase rates of ENDS use assessment at more cancer centers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study identifies a gap in the systematic assessment of ENDS use among patients seen at 42 NCI-Designated cancer centers. Requiring the systematic assessment of both ENDS use and use of other tobacco products can inform evidence-based treatment of tobacco dependence and lead to improved cancer treatment outcomes.

Best practices for assessing and reporting tobacco use in urology oncology practice and research

Tobacco use is the cause of several urologic cancers. Persistent use after diagnosis is associated with worse cancer-specific, quality of life, and overall mortality outcomes. Cigarette smoking remains the most common form of tobacco use despite significant population-level decline over the past few decades. The burden of smoking-related urologic disease is under appreciated by urologists and patients which has resulted in gaps in clinical care and limitations to research progress. We sought to summarize evidence-based practices and guideline recommendations for assessing and reporting tobacco use in the clinical and research settings. With a focus on smoking, our two primary goals are: 1) to promote the adoption of standardized and validated measures of tobacco use and 2) to highlight evidence-based strategies for urologists to use in clinical practice.

Change in Health-Related Quality of Life Among Individuals With Cancer Undergoing Smoking Cessation Treatment Involving Varenicline

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among individuals with cancer is undermined by smoking cessation treatment involving varenicline.

SAMPLE & SETTING

Participants (N = 103) were daily smokers with cancer (up to five years postdiagnosis) who completed a placebo-controlled trial of standard versus extended duration varenicline.

METHODS & VARIABLES

For this secondary study, participants were selected based on having completed the SF-12® at weeks 0, 1, 12, and 24. Using separate repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance, change in SF-12 scores was evaluated by time and by cancer treatment, varenicline duration, and quit status at week 24.

RESULTS

There was no change in any of the three HRQOL scores by time or by cancer treatment status, varenicline duration, or quit status. Average emotional HRQOL score across time was significantly higher for quitters versus smokers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Varenicline, including long-term treatment, does not appear to adversely affect HRQOL, which is highly relevant to oncology nurses who are well positioned to assist with the pharmacologic treatment of tobacco dependence.

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 [...].

Implementation of a Smoking Cessation e-Learning Education Program for Oncology Clinic Healthcare Providers: Evaluation With Implications for Evidence-Based Practice

BACKGROUND

Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases the risk for treatment complications, primary cancer recurrence, and secondary malignancy development, while also reducing treatment efficacy, survival, and overall health. The lack of formal evidence-based smoking cessation education programs for oncology healthcare providers is a barrier to smoking cessation practices.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of an evidence-based, smoking cessation e-learning education program for oncology healthcare providers.

METHODS

A single group, pre- and post-test, nonexperimental design was used in this evidence-based quality improvement project. To assess the provider's knowledge in smoking cessation, a baseline assessment, a post-test, and an online survey were completed by the providers. A telephone survey was conducted to assess the patients' perception of cessation services received.

RESULTS

The healthcare providers' (N = 58) test scores on smoking cessation knowledge increased significantly (p < .0001) after completing the e-learning education program. A majority of the providers reported that the education program increased their confidence (86%) in successfully helping the patient to quit smoking and agreed to make smoking cessation a priority (89%) in their practice. A majority of the patients (85%) were satisfied or extremely satisfied with the smoking cessation services received. Many patients (71%) self-reported having tried to quit smoking.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-based e-learning education program is effective in increasing oncology healthcare providers' knowledge and confidence in tobacco dependence treatment practices. The program also has a positive impact on oncology patients' perception of cessation services received.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

A self-paced e-learning program is a feasible and effective way to educate healthcare providers in smoking cessation treatment. Incorporating evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment into their daily oncology practice is warranted.

Patient-Level Factors Associated with Oncology Provider-Delivered Brief Tobacco Treatment Among Recently Diagnosed Cancer Patients

Background:

A cancer diagnosis is seen as a “teachable moment” for patients to consider changing their behavioral risk factors, such as smoking. It also offers an opportunity for oncology providers to engage in a dialogue about how they can support patients changing their smoking behaviors. Brief, evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment delivered by oncology providers through the 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist Arrange) model is recommended, but provision to cancer patients remains suboptimal.

Aim:

Explore patient-level factors associated with 5As receipt among current smokers with a newly diagnosed cancer.

Method:

A total of 303 patients self-reported whether they received each of the 5As during their most recent oncology care visit. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to identify patient-level factors associated with 5As receipt.

Results:

Oncology provider-delivered 5As rates ranged from 81.5% (Ask) to 30.7% (Arrange). 5As receipt was associated with: reporting lower illness-related stigma, diagnosis of a comorbid smoking-related disease, diagnosis of a smoking-related cancer, and diagnosis of a non-advanced cancer.

Conclusion:

Findings support previous literature in which smoking-related diagnoses were associated with greater receipt of 5As; however, disparities in the receipt of 5As existed for patients with more advanced cancer diagnoses and illness-related stigma. Inequities in the provision of quit assistance may further decrease treatment effectiveness and survival expectancy among certain patient populations. These findings are, therefore, important as they identify specific patient-level factors associated with lower 5As receipt among newly diagnosed cancer patients.

Leveraging Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement via the Electronic Health Record to Connect Patients with Cancer to Smoking Cessation Treatment

Tobacco use negatively impacts cancer treatment outcomes, yet too few providers actively support their patients in quitting. Barriers to consistently addressing tobacco use and referring to treatment include time constraints and lack of knowledge surrounding treatment options. Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) measurement is best practice in cancer care and has potential to help address these barriers to tobacco cessation treatment. This descriptive program evaluation study reports preliminary results following implementation of a novel automated PRO tobacco use screener and referral system via the electronic health record (EHR) patient portal (MyChart) that was developed and implemented as a part of a population-based tobacco treatment program at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University. Between 25 June 2019 and 6 April 2020, 4589 unique patients completed the screener and 164 (3.6%) unique patients screened positive for recent (past month) cigarette smoking. All patients who screened positive were automatically referred to a smoking cessation treatment program integrated within the Lurie Cancer Center, and 71 (49.7%) patients engaged in treatment, as defined by completing at least one behavioral counseling session. Preliminary results indicate that the PRO/MyChart system may improve smoker identification and increase offering of treatment and, despite the "cold call" following a positive screen, may result in a treatment engagement rate that is higher than rates of treatment engagement previously documented in oncology settings. Longer term evaluation with formal statistical testing is needed before drawing conclusions regarding effectiveness, but PRO measurement via the EHR patient portal may serve a potentially important role in a multi-component approach to reaching and engaging cancer patients in comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment.

An Evaluation of the Process and Quality Improvement Measures of the University of Virginia Cancer Center Tobacco Treatment Program

Tobacco use after a cancer diagnosis can increase risk of disease recurrence, increase the likelihood of a second primary cancer, and negatively impact treatment efficacy. The implementation of system-wide comprehensive tobacco cessation in the oncology setting has historically been low, with over half of cancer clinicians reporting that they do not treat or provide a referral to cessation resources. This quality improvement study evaluated the procedures for assessing and documenting tobacco use among cancer survivors and referring current smokers to cessation resources at the University of Virginia Cancer Center. Process mapping revealed 20 gaps across two major domains: electronic health record (EHR), and personnel barriers. The top identified priority was inconsistent documentation of tobacco use status as it impacted several downstream gaps. Eleven of the 20 gaps were deemed a high priority, and all were addressed during the implementation of the resulting Tobacco Treatment Program. Prioritized gaps were addressed using a combination of provider training, modifications to clinical workflow, and EHR modifications. Since implementation of solutions, the number of unique survivors receiving cessation treatment has increased from 284 survivors receiving cessation support during Year 1 of the initiative to 487 in Year 3. The resulting Tobacco Treatment Program provides a systematic, personalized, and sustainable comprehensive cessation program that optimizes the multifaceted workflow of the Cancer Center and has the potential to reduce tobacco use in a population most in need of cessation support.

Design and Pilot Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based System to Automatically Refer Cancer Patients to Tobacco Use Treatment

Continued tobacco use after cancer diagnosis is detrimental to treatment and survivorship. The current reach of evidence-based tobacco treatments in cancer patients is low. As a part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center designed an electronic health record (EHR, Epic^©)-based process to automatically refer ambulatory oncology patients to tobacco use treatment, regardless of intent to cease tobacco use(“opt out”). The referral and patient scheduling, accomplished through a best practice advisory (BPA) directed to staff who room patients, does not require a co-signature from clinicians. This process was piloted for a six-week period starting in July of 2019 at the Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. All oncology patients who were tobacco users were referred for tobacco treatment by the rooming staff (n = 210). Of these, 150 (71%) had a tobacco treatment appointment scheduled, and 25 (17%) completed their appointment. We conclude that an EHR-based “opt-out” approach to refer patients to tobacco dependence treatment that does not require active involvement by clinicians is feasible within the oncology clinical practice. Further work is needed to increase the proportion of scheduled patients who attend their appointments.

A Qualitative Study of Smoking-Related Causal Attributions and Risk Perceptions in Cervical Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of smoking among cervical cancer survivors typically exceeds what is found among women in the general population and other cancer survivors. Yet, there is a dearth of literature on risk and protective factors related to smoking among cervical cancer survivors, especially when it comes to identification of variables that are amendable to intervention. To help fill this gap in the literature, this qualitative study examines the nature of smoking-related causal attributions and risk perceptions in cervical cancer survivors who smoked at cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

Participants are 21 female cervical cancer survivors (M=45.7, SD=8.4 years old), all diagnosed in the past five years. Nearly three-quarters of participants reported smoking in the past month.

RESULTS

Smoking was not uniformly recognized as a cause of cervical cancer (whether in general or participants' own cancer); the link between smoking and lung, head-neck, and other cancers was more readily accepted. Despite generally weak endorsements of causal attributions, many participants reported smoking significantly increases risk for poor clinical (e.g., recurrence) and quality of life (e.g., pain) outcomes after cervical cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest cervical cancer survivors may not fully understand or appreciate the role of smoking in cervical cancer risk whereas their beliefs about the role of smoking in cervical cancer prognosis are more well-formed. This study highlights the potential role of causal attributions and risk perceptions in understanding and addressing the smoking-related experience of cervical cancer survivors.

Exploring Tobacco Use and Smoking Cessation Best Practices From the Perspectives of Individuals With Lung Cancer and Health Care Professionals

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer patients who continue to smoke after diagnosis are at increased risk of treatment toxicity, residual/recurrent disease, future malignancies, and all-cause mortality. Guidelines including those from National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Cancer Care Ontario advocate for screening, counseling, and access to smoking cessation services for all cancer patients; however, barriers from both patient and health care professional (HCP) perspectives contribute to lack of implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify the different perspectives among patients and HCPs in how the promotion of person-centred approaches may be used when offering smoking cessation services to patients who are receiving care within a regional cancer centre.

METHODS

Qualitative data were generated using various methods, including focus groups with HCPs and interviews with patients. In total, 16 HCPs participated in three focus groups: including nine radiation therapists, five registered nurses, one registered dietitian, and one physiotherapist. Of 55 patients accrued, 19 were interviewed. Both focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, and the recordings were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were then analyzed using narrative thematic analysis to define and identify themes.

RESULTS

The identified themes were categorized into three topic areas: knowledge (eg, impact of smoking on illness and why they should not smoke); individual decision to quit (eg, motivators), and the social unacceptability of smoking (eg, the public perception of smoking over the last 40 years). HCP-identified themes included identification of smokers, triggers to start a conversation, approach, gaps and barriers to cessation, rationale for cessation, and judgment. Patient-identified themes included knowledge, individual decision to quit, and the social unacceptability of smoking.

CONCLUSION

Understanding patient and HCP perspectives on smoking cessation will help influence practice to ensure that patients are not judged, assumptions are not made, and individualized and person-centred care is provided. HCP awareness of these themes and the patient perspective may challenge assumptions and values.

Post-diagnosis smoking and risk of cardiovascular, cancer, and all-cause mortality in survivors of 10 adult cancers: a prospective cohort study

Several studies have examined the relationship between smoking and mortality in cancer survivors. However, few have reported the relationships in several cancer sites (i.e., bladder, non-melanoma skin, uterine, melanoma, and lymphoma), and limited data exist on the dose-response relationship between number of cigarettes smoked per day or duration of smoking cessation and mortality. Cancer survivors (N = 35,093, 61% female, mean age = 47 years old) from the National Health Interview Survey with linked data retrieved from the National Death Index served as our study participants. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to assess associations between smoking status, all-cause, and disease-specific mortality. After a median follow-up of 13 years, 11,066 deaths occurred. Survivors who reported smoking at study entry had a 73%, 75%, 85% higher risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively when compared to nonsmokers. Former smokers had a 31% and 37% higher risk of all-cause and cancer mortality, respectively when compared to nonsmokers. The observed relationships appeared to differ by the number of cigarettes smoked (i.e., ≥ 10 per day), especially for breast, cervix, lung, prostate, uterine and non-melanoma skin cancer survivors. Those who continued smoking post diagnosis were at greatest risk of all-cause and cancer mortality, but the associations varied substantially by cancer site. These data provide sufficient evidence of the health hazards associated with smoking for cancer survivors and provide further support for public health strategies designed to curb smoking in this vulnerable population.

Care for Smoking Cessation Must Be Proactive and Based on a Combination of Pharmacology and Psychology

This letter to the editor comments on a recently published article calling for more effective smoking cessation methods for cancer patients and suggests that smoking cessation must be a priority for all, not just for patients with cancer.