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

The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions after cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

patients with cancer who smoke have more side effects during and after treatment, and a lower survival rate than patients with cancer who quit smoking. Supporting patients with cancer to quit smoking should be standard care. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective smoking cessation method for patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched. Included were randomized controlled trials and observational studies published after January 2000 with any smoking cessation intervention in patients with any type of cancer. Result of these studies were evaluated in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 18,780 papers were retrieved. After duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 72 publications were left. After full text screening, 19 (randomized) controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included. The overall methodological quality of the included studies, rated by GRADE criteria, was very low. Two out of 21 combined intervention trials showed a statistical significant effect. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs and 3 observational studies showed a significant benefit of combined modality interventions (OR 1.67, 95% C.I.: 1.24-2.26, p = 0.0008) and behavioural interventions (OR 1.33, 95% C.I.: 1.02 - 1.74, p = 0.03), but not for single modality pharmacological interventions (OR 1.11; 95% C.I.: 0.69-1.78, p = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

A combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions may be the most effective intervention for smoking cessation in patients with cancer.

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.

Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Smokers Diagnosed with Cancer

The detrimental impact of smoking on health and wellbeing are irrefutable. Additionally, smoking is associated with the development of cancer, a reduction treatment outcomes and poorer health outcomes. Nevertheless, a significant number of people continue to smoke following a cancer diagnosis. Little is understood of the smoking cessation services provided to smokers with cancer or their engagement with them. This systematic review aimed to identify existing smoking cessation interventions for this cohort diagnosed with breast, head and neck, lung and cervical cancers (linked to risk). Systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Psych Info and CINAHL from 1 January 2015 to 15 December 2020 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of smoking cessation interventions and impact on referrals and quit attempts. The impact on healthcare professionals was included if reported. Included studies were restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs, and narrative data synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO CRD 42020214204, and reporting adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Data were screened, extracted in duplicate and an assessment of the quality of evidence undertaken using Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, Australia and including randomized controlled trials (9), observational studies (10), quality improvement (3), and one qualitative study. Hospital and cancer clinics [including a dental clinic] were the settings for all studies. 43% (10/23) of studies reported interventions for smokers diagnosed with head and neck cancer, 13% (3/23) for smokers diagnosed with lung cancer, one study provides evidence for breast cancer, and the remaining nine studies (39%) report on multiple cancers including the ones specified in this review. Methodological quality was variable. There were limited data to identify one optimal intervention for this cohort. Key elements included the timing and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, pharmacotherapy including extended use of varenicline, increased counselling sessions and a service embedded in oncology departments. More studies are required to ensure tailored smoking cessation pathways are co-developed for smokers with a diagnosis of cancer to support this population.

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.

Post-diagnosis smoking cessation and survival of patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cigarette smoking is the main risk factor for head and neck cancer (HNC) and many HNC patients are active smokers at diagnosis. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to quantify the survival impact of smoking cessation at or around the time of HNC diagnosis. We searched studies published until December 31, 2021, and used random-effects meta-analysis to pool study-specific estimates into summary hazard ratio (SHR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Sixteen studies were published between 1983 and 2021, and over 2300 HNC patients were included. Studies were diverse in terms of design, patients, tumours and treatment characteristics, and criteria used to discriminate quitters from continued smokers. HNC patients who quit smoking at or around diagnosis had significantly better overall survival than continued smokers (SHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91, n studies = 10). A beneficial effect of post-diagnosis smoking cessation was suggested for other survival endpoints as well, but the results were based on fewer studies (n = 5) and affected by publication bias. Cessation counselling should be offered to all smokers who start a diagnostic workup for HNC and should be considered standard multidisciplinary oncological care for HNC patients. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021245560.

Impact of deep learning-determined smoking status on mortality of cancer patients: never too late to quit

Background

Persistent smoking after cancer diagnosis is associated with increased overall mortality (OM) and cancer mortality (CM). According to the 2020 Surgeon General's report, smoking cessation may reduce CM but supporting evidence is not wide. Use of deep learning-based modeling that enables universal natural language processing of medical narratives to acquire population-based real-life smoking data may help overcome the challenge. We assessed the effect of smoking status and within-1-year smoking cessation on CM by an in-house adapted freely available language processing algorithm.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional real-world study included 29 823 patients diagnosed with cancer in 2009-2018 in Southwest Finland. The medical narrative, International Classification of Diseases-10th edition codes, histology, cancer treatment records, and death certificates were combined. Over 162 000 sentences describing tobacco smoking behavior were analyzed with ULMFiT and BERT algorithms.

Results

The language model classified the smoking status of 23 031 patients. Recent quitters had reduced CM [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80 (0.74-0.87)] and OM [HR 0.78 (0.72-0.84)] compared to persistent smokers. Compared to never smokers, persistent smokers had increased CM in head and neck, gastro-esophageal, pancreatic, lung, prostate, and breast cancer and Hodgkin's lymphoma, irrespective of age, comorbidities, performance status, or presence of metastatic disease. Increased CM was also observed in smokers with colorectal cancer, men with melanoma or bladder cancer, and lymphoid and myeloid leukemia, but no longer independently of the abovementioned covariates. Specificity and sensitivity were 96%/96%, 98%/68%, and 88%/99% for never, former, and current smokers, respectively, being essentially the same with both models.

Conclusions

Deep learning can be used to classify large amounts of smoking data from the medical narrative with good accuracy. The results highlight the detrimental effects of persistent smoking in oncologic patients and emphasize that smoking cessation should always be an essential element of patient counseling.

•

Deep learning/universal language modeling was used to extract smoking status of cancer patients. Good accuracy was observed.

•

Those who continue smoking after cancer diagnosis had increased CM compared to never smokers.

•

Recent within-1-year cessation reduced this mortality.

•

Detrimental effects of smoking were observed in multiple types of early- and advanced-stage cancers, including the elderly.

•

We conclude that smoking cessation support should always be included in cancer care.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Laryngeal Cancer Care

There is a long history of racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare and they continue to persist in contemporary society. These disparities have the potential to negatively affect morbidity and mortality in racial and ethnic minorities diagnosed with laryngeal cancer. Diagnosis, medical treatment, and rehabilitation for laryngeal cancer have improved considerably, leading to improvements in overall survival rates and physical, social, and psychological functioning. Yet members of minority and underrepresented groups are at an increased risk for experiencing reduced access to quality care and delays between diagnosis and treatment, and as a result have lower survival rates. Increasing health providers' awareness of racial and ethnic disparities in laryngeal cancer is necessary to facilitate changes in patient and provider education, clinical practice, and health policies. The purpose of this review is to summarize current literature on disparities in laryngeal cancer diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation among Black and Hispanic patients. We present recent data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to examine trends in laryngeal cancer and patient, provider, and health systems factors that may perpetuate these disparities. In addition, we offer interventions to address racism and other racial and ethnic biases in laryngeal cancer care and describe research and legislative actions that are needed to reduce disparities in this area.