Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer

The gold standard program (GSP) for smoking cessation: a cohort study of its effectiveness among smokers with and without cancer

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation treatment is an important prognostic factor for survival after a cancer diagnosis, especially for tobacco-related cancers. After being diagnosed with lung cancer, approximately 50% of patients continue smoking or frequently relapse after a quit attempt. Given the importance of smoking cessation treatment for cancer survivors, the objective was to compare the effectiveness of a 6-week intensive smoking cessation intervention, the Gold Standard Program (GSP), among cancer survivors compared with smokers without cancer. Second, we compared successful quitting among socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer survivors with that among nondisadvantaged cancer survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cohort study based on 38,345 smokers from the Danish Smoking Cessation Database (2006-2016). Linkage to the National Patient Register was used to identify cancer survivors undergoing the GSP after being diagnosed with cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer). Linkage to the Danish Civil Registration System was used to identify participants who died, went missing, or emigrated before the follow-up. Logistic regression models were applied to evaluate effectiveness.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Six percent (2438) of the included smokers were cancer survivors at the time they undertook the GSP. Their 6-month successful quitting showed no difference compared to that of smokers without cancer, neither before nor after adjustment; 35% versus 37% in crude rates and an aOR of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.97-1.32). Likewise, the results for disadvantaged compared to nondisadvantaged cancer survivors were not significantly different (32% versus 33% and an adjusted aOR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.69-1.11)). Overall, an intensive smoking cessation program seems effective in helping both people without cancer and cancer survivors become successful quitters.

Immunotherapeutics in lung cancers: from mechanistic insight to clinical implications and synergistic perspectives

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the highly lethal forms of cancer whose incidence has worldwide rapidly increased over the past few decades. About 80-85% of all lung cancer cases constitute non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and large cell carcinoma as the main subtypes. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to significant advances in the treatment of a variety of solid tumors, significantly improving cancer patient survival rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The cytotoxic drugs in combination with anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies is a new method that aims to reduce the activation of immunosuppressive and cancer cell prosurvival responses while also improving direct cancer cell death. The most commonly utilized immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with non-small cell lung cancer are monoclonal antibodies (Atezolizumab, Cemiplimab, Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab etc.) against PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4. Among them, Atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ) and Cemiplimab (Libtayo) are engineered monoclonal anti programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies that inhibit binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 and B7.1. As a result, T-cell proliferation and cytokine synthesis are inhibited leading to restoring the immune homeostasis to fight cancer cells.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review article, the path leading to the introduction of immunotherapeutic options in lung cancer treatment is described, with analyzing the benefits and shortages of the current immunotherapeutic drugs. In addition, possibilities to co-administer immunotherapeutic agents with standard cancer treatment modalities are also considered.

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.

The Prognostic Impact of Quitting Smoking at or around Diagnosis on the Survival of Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Literature Review

Simple Summary

Smokers are at high risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal system, and many patients with newly diagnosed cancer of the oesophagus, stomach, colon-rectum, and liver are active smokers at diagnosis. In this review, we focused on whether stopping smoking shortly before diagnosis or afterwards (e.g., during treatment) may improve the chance of survival for these patients. We reviewed the scientific literature up to April 2022 and found only seven articles focusing on this topic. While very limited in number, these studies provided suggestive evidence in favour of a beneficial effect of smoking cessation for these patients. Smokers with newly diagnosed cancer of the gastrointestinal system should be encouraged to stop smoking and provided all the necessary support to achieve this goal.

Abstract

Cigarette smoking is a strong risk factor for the occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers, and a substantial proportion of newly diagnosed patients is made up of active smokers, yet the impact of smoking cessation at or around diagnosis on the clinical course of these cancers (whose prognosis is often unfavourable) has never been summarized to date. We reviewed studies published until 30 April 2022 that investigated whether smoking cessation at or around diagnosis favourably affects the clinical course of gastrointestinal cancers patients. Six studies were included for colorectal cancer patients, which provided limited yet suggestive evidence that quitters may have longer disease-specific survival compared to continued smokers. Only one study each focused on patients with gastric or HBV-positive liver cancer (both reporting a survival advantage for quitters vs. continued smokers), while we found no eligible studies for patients with cancer at other sites within the digestive system. More research is urgently needed to expand the evidence on the topic, given the potentially major clinical implications for these patients. Moreover, health professionals should provide the necessary smoking cessation support to any smoker who is undergoing diagnostic work-up or treatment for gastrointestinal cancer.

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review

PURPOSE

Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use).

CONCLUSIONS

About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in 2022: A Review for General Practitioners in Oncology

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Canada and a significant cause of morbidity for patients and their loved ones. There have been rapid advances in preventing, screening and treating this disease. Here, we present a contemporary review of treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Canada based on current best practices. The focus of this review is to highlight recent data in screening for lung cancer, management of patients with early and locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer, as well as management of patients with metastatic disease. There is a special focus on the incorporation of immunotherapy into practice and its associated toxicities.

Smoking cessation and survival among people diagnosed with non-metastatic cancer

Background

We aimed to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on survival among people diagnosed with cancer.

Methods

We used data from a Comprehensive Community Cancer Program that is part of a large urban safety-net hospital system. Eligible patients were diagnosed with primary invasive solid tumors between 2013 and 2015, and were current smokers at time of diagnosis. Our exposure of interest was initiation of smoking cessation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis. We estimated inverse probability weighted restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences and risk ratio (RR) for all cause 3-year mortality.

Results

Our study population comprised 369 patients, of whom 42% were aged < 55 years, 59% were male, 44% were racial/ethnic minorities, and 59% were uninsured. The 3-year RMST was 1.8 (95% CL: − 1.5, 5.1) months longer for individuals who initiated smoking cessation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis. The point estimate for risk of 3-year mortality was lower for initiation of smoking cessation within 6 months of diagnosis compared with no initiation within 6 months (RR = 0.72, 95% CL: 0.37, 1.4).

Conclusions

Our point estimates suggest longer 3-year survival, but the results are compatible with 1.5 month shorter or 5.1 longer 3-year overall survival after smoking cessation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis. Future studies with larger sample sizes that test the comparative effectiveness of different smoking cessation strategies are needed for more detailed evidence to inform decision-making about the effect of smoking cessation on survival among cancer patients.

Implications for Cancer survivors

The benefits of smoking cessation after cancer diagnosis may include longer survival, but the magnitude of benefit is unclear.

Using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trial registration is insufficient: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

While conducting systemic reviews, searching for ongoing or unpublished trials is critical to address publication bias. As of April 2019, records of ongoing or unpublished randomized and/or quasi-randomized controlled trials registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov are available in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). These records registered in CENTRAL include studies published since the inception of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov . Whether systematic reviewers can search CENTRAL to identify ongoing or unpublished trials instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov is unknown.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study. A consecutive sample of ongoing or unpublished studies published from June 1, 2019 to December 27, 2019 was selected from the Cochrane Reviews. The sensitivity and the number needed to read (NNR) were assessed from among the studies selected from CENTRAL instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov and also assessed the characteristics of studies not identified by searching CENTRAL.

RESULTS

In total, 247 records from 50 Cochrane reviews were included; of these, 200 were identified by searching CENTRAL, whereas the remaining 47 records were not. The sensitivity of searching CENTRAL was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.85). The NNR was 115 (95% CI: 101, 133). The 47 unidentified studies were registered through ClinicalTrials.gov or ICTRP. Sixteen unidentified studies were not indexed in CENTRAL.

CONCLUSIONS

For systematic reviewers, searching CENTRAL could not substitute for searching ClinicalTrials.gov and/or ICTRP. Systematic reviewers should not only search CENTRAL but also ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

A pre-specified protocol was applied to conduct this study. The study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000038981 .