Issues related to implementing a smoking cessation clinical trial for cancer patients

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.

In-clinic Versus Online Recruitment of Women With a History of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Cervical Cancer to a Smoking Cessation Trial: A Post hoc Comparison of Participant Characteristics, Study Retention, and Cessation Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting special populations to smoking cessation trials is challenging and approaches beyond in-clinic recruitment may be beneficial. This secondary analysis of data from a smoking cessation RCT for individuals with a history of cervical cancer or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) explored differences associated with in-clinic vs. online recruitment.

AIMS AND METHODS

Participants were recruited from clinics within a university-based NCI-designated cancer center (n = 87) and online nationally via Facebook (n = 115). Baseline measures included sociodemographics, smoking history, and cancer or CIN history. Study retention and smoking abstinence were assessed 12 months post-baseline. Group differences in baseline characteristics were evaluated. Retention and abstinence were evaluated while controlling for group differences and predictors.

RESULTS

Participants recruited online (vs. in-clinic) had higher educational attainment (p = .01) and health literacy (p = .003). They were more likely to have CIN versus cancer, to be further from the time of diagnosis, and to have completed active treatment (p values < .001). While controlling for these group differences and independent predictors, retention was higher among participants recruited online (log-likelihood χ2(1) = 11.41, p < .001). There were no recruitment differences in self-reported (p = .90) or biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence (p = .18).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to individuals recruited in-person, individuals recruited online were more educated, had higher health literacy, and presented with a different clinical profile (ie, more likely to have CIN vs. cancer and to have completed active treatment). There were few differences in participant characteristics between recruitment approaches, and no differences on any smoking-related variables. Online recruitment has the potential to improve enrollment of cancer survivors in smoking cessation trials.

IMPLICATIONS

People with a history of CIN or cervical cancer recruited to a smoking cessation RCT online (vs. in-clinic) were more likely to have a diagnosis of CIN versus cancer and were more educated and health literate. Participants recruited online were more likely to be retained in the study and there were no differences in smoking abstinence rates at 12 months. Incorporating online recruitment increased the reach of tobacco treatment efforts to a larger and more diverse sample. This could reduce the burden of tobacco-related disease, improve CIN and cancer treatment outcomes, and reduce secondary malignancies and morbidity among this underserved group.

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.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

Effective Timing of Introducing an Inpatient Smoking Cessation Program to Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify factors influencing smoking cessation success among cancer patients registered in an inpatient smoking cessation program at a single cancer center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic medical records of enrolled patients with solid cancer were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated factors associated with 6-month smoking cessation.

RESULTS

A total of 458 patients with cancer were included in this study. Their mean age was 62.9±10.3 years, and 56.3% of the participants had lung cancer. 193 (42.1%) had not yet begun their main treatment. The mean number of counseling sessions for the participants was 8.4±3.5, and 46 (10.0%) patients were prescribed smoking cessation medications. The 6-month smoking cessation success rate was 48.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that younger age (<65 years), cohabited status, early stage, and the number of counseling sessions were statistically significant factors affecting 6-month smoking cessation success (p<0.05). Initiation of a cessation program before cancer treatment was significantly associated with cessation success (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.70; p=0.040).

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation intervention must be considered when establishing a treatment plan immediately after a cancer diagnosis among smokers.

Perceptions of somatic and affective symptoms and psychosocial care utilization in younger and older survivors of lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Rates of depression identification in oncology settings and referral to psychosocial services remain low. Patients with lung cancer face an elevated risk of depression relative to patients with other cancers. This study explored perceptions of somatic and affective symptoms and psychosocial care utilization among younger and older lung cancer survivors.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 adults at two academic medical centers in Boston, MA, who had received a lung cancer diagnosis in the past 24 months. A semi-structured interview guide was used to assess experiences with, and perceptions of, depression symptoms and psychosocial services. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify themes. We also explored differences between younger (<65years; N=9) and older (>65years; N=11) patients.

RESULTS

Participants commonly described somatic symptoms (i.e., changes in appetite, sleep, or energy levels) and affective symptoms (i.e., worry, fear, sadness) as side effects of cancer treatment. Older participants more commonly contextualized these symptoms with information about how they impacted daily life. Both younger and older participants faced barriers to accessing psychosocial services, with older adults more commonly referencing stigma of service referral and utilization.

DISCUSSION

Patients with lung cancer associated both somatic and affective symptoms with their cancer and its treatment, with age differences in how symptoms were described and how psychosocial referrals may be perceived. More systematic integration of psychosocial care into cancer care may help to increase the identification of depression in lung cancer and reduce barriers to psychosocial service utilization.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Smartphone health apps for tobacco Cessation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Given the low retention and lack of persistent support by traditional tobacco cessation programs, evidence-based smartphone app-supported interventions can be an important tobacco control component. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the types of studies that use smartphone apps for interventions in tobacco cessation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed (1946-2019), EMBASE (1974-2019), and PsycINFO (1806-2019) databases with keywords related to smartphone-supported tobacco cessation. Included articles were required to meet 3 baseline screening criteria: 1) be written in English, 2) include an abstract, and 3) be a full, peer-reviewed manuscript. The criteria for the second level of review were: 1) primary outcome of tobacco cessation, 2) intervention study, and 3) smartphone app as primary focus of study.

RESULTS

Of 1973 eligible manuscripts, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 17) recruited adult participants (18 + years); one included teens (16 + years). Tobacco cessation was usually self-reported (n = 11), compared to biochemical verification (n = 3) or both (n = 4). There were 11 randomized controlled trials, 4 of which reported statistically significant results, and 7 single-arm trials that reported a mean abstinence rate of 33.9%.

DISCUSSION

The majority of studies that use tobacco cessation apps as an intervention delivery modality are mostly at the pilot/feasibility stage. The growing field has resulted in studies that varied in methodologies, study design, and inclusion criteria. More consistency in intervention components and larger randomized controlled trials are needed for tobacco cessation smartphone apps.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I2 = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I2 = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I2 = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I2 = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I2 = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

The association between self-reported varenicline adherence and varenicline blood levels in a sample of cancer patients receiving treatment for tobacco dependence

Introduction

The degree to which smokers quit successfully with varenicline is strongly associated with their adherence to the medication regimen. Thus, measuring varenicline adherence to identify smokers needing additional intervention is a priority. Few studies, however, have examined the validity of self-reported varenicline adherence, using a biological assessment of adherence as a reference. No study has examined this issue among cancer patients trying to quit smoking, who may show unique patterns of adherence given their medical comorbidity.

Methods

This study used data from 76 cancer patients who received varenicline and provided self-reported varenicline adherence data (pill count) and a blood sample to determine varenicline metabolites 4 weeks after initiating varenicline.

Results

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses of plasma varenicline levels showed that 4 ng/ml was the optimal cut-point for differentiating adherence with significant (p's < 0.04) area under the curve values, ranging from 0.73–0.80 for 3-day, 7-day, and 4-week self-reported pill count; specificity values ranged from 0.63–0.78 and sensitivity values ranged from 0.82–0.94. Using this cut-point, adherence was high (88%). However, plasma varenicline levels were weakly correlated with 3-day and 4-week pill count and total pill count (12 weeks) was not correlated with plasma varenicline levels. Patients with head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and more advanced disease showed lower varenicline adherence and lower plasma varenicline.

Conclusions

Using the 4 ng/ml cut-point, this study suggests validity of short-term self-reported varenicline adherence among cancer patients undergoing tobacco dependence treatment in contrast to studies in the general population, which supported 12-week pill count.

•

First study of the validity of self-reported varenicline use among cancer patients

•

Identified cut-point for varenicline plasma adherence

•

Supports the validity of short-term self-reported varenicline adherence

•

Cancer-related variables influence varenicline adherence

•

Varenicline adherence may be higher among cancer patients

Associations between the smoking-relatedness of a cancer type, cessation attitudes and beliefs, and future abstinence among recent quitters

OBJECTIVE

Smoking after a diagnosis of cancer can negatively impact treatment outcomes and quality of life. It is important that patients quit smoking and remain abstinent regardless of cancer type. Some cancer types (eg, lung) have stronger links to smoking as a cause than do others (eg, colorectal). The aims of this study were to (1) assess associations between smoking-relatedness of the cancer type with beliefs and attitudes concerning smoking abstinence (eg, confidence, self-efficacy), and (2) assess these variables as predictors of future abstinence.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis, cancer patients (N = 357) who quit smoking within the previous 90 days were assigned a code of 3, 2, or 1 according to the cancer type's level of smoking-relatedness: Very related (n = 134, thoracic and head and neck), Somewhat related (n = 93, acute myeloid leukemia, bladder, cervix, colorectal, esophageal, kidney, liver, pancreas, and stomach), and Unlikely related (n = 137, all other cancer types).

RESULTS

Smoking-relatedness was positively associated with plan to stay smoke-free, maximum confidence in being smoke-free in 6 months, higher abstinence self-efficacy, and lower expected difficulty in staying smoke-free. Each of the 4 beliefs and attitude variables predicted abstinence 2 months later. Smoking-relatedness also predicted abstinence in a univariate model, but not in a multivariable model with the belief and attitude variables. Using backwards stepwise procedures, the final model included plan to stay smoke-free, confidence in being smoke-free, and abstinence self-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

These results are consistent with our conceptualization of cessation motivation differing by smoking-relatedness of the cancer type and predicting future abstinence.

Predictors of Smoking Cessation and Relapse in Cancer Patients and Effect on Psychological Variables: an 18-Month Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Although cancer patients are generally strongly advised to quit smoking in order to improve treatment efficacy and survival, up to 68 % of patients who were smokers at the time of cancer diagnosis continue smoking. Psychological factors such as depression and anxiety are likely to be associated with smoking behavior following a cancer diagnosis, but the empirical evidence is scarce.

PURPOSE

This observational study aimed at estimating smoking cessation rates and assessing the effect of smoking cessation on psychological symptoms, as well as the predictive role of the same psychological variables on smoking cessation and smoking relapse following cancer surgery.

METHODS

As part of a larger prospective, epidemiological study, smokers (n = 175) with a first diagnosis of nonmetastatic cancer completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Insomnia Severity Index, and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory. Quitters (n = 55) and pair-matched nonquitters (n = 55) were compared on each symptom at pre-quitting, post-quitting, and at a 4-month follow-up. Predictors of smoking cessation and smoking relapse, including psychological variables, were also investigated.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (31.4 %) stopped smoking at least on one occasion during the study. Of the 55 quitters, 27 (49.1 %) experienced a relapse. At pre-quitting, quitters had significantly higher levels of anxiety (p = .03) and fear of cancer recurrence (p = .01) than nonquitters, symptoms that significantly diminished at post-quitting and 4 months later in this subgroup of patients. Having breast cancer significantly predicted smoking cessation (relative risk [RR] = 3.08), while depressive symptoms were a significant predictor of smoking relapse (RR = 1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of psychological symptoms in predicting tobacco cessation and relapse among individuals with cancer. Our findings suggest that breast cancer patients are more inclined to stop smoking than patients with other cancers, but future studies should attempt to delineate the effect on smoking cessation of gender and other demographics that characterize this subgroup. This study also suggests that a particular attention should be paid to the early management of depressive symptoms in order to prevent smoking relapse.

Barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation in a cancer context: A qualitative study of patient, family and professional views

Background

Continued smoking after cancer adversely affects quality of life and survival, but one fifth of cancer survivors still smoke. Despite its demands, cancer presents an opportunity for positive behaviour change. Smoking often occurs in social groups, therefore interventions which target families and individuals may be more successful. This qualitative study explored patients, family members and health professionals’ views and experiences of smoking and smoking cessation after cancer, in order to inform future interventions.

Methods

In-depth qualitative interviews (n = 67) with 29 patients, 14 family members and 24 health professionals. Data were analysed using the ‘Framework’ method.

Results

Few patients and family members had used National Health Service (NHS) smoking cessation services and more than half still smoked. Most recalled little ‘smoking-related’ discussion with clinicians but were receptive to talking openly. Clinicians revealed several barriers to discussion. Participants’ continued smoking was explained by the stress of diagnosis; desire to maintain personal control; and lack of connection between smoking, cancer and health.

Conclusions

A range of barriers to smoking cessation exist for patients and family members. These are insufficiently assessed and considered by clinicians. Interventions must be more effectively integrated into routine practice.

Adverse Health Outcomes Associated with Postdiagnosis Smoking in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Literature Review

This literature review presents what is currently known about the association between postdiagnosis smoking and adverse health outcomes in prostate cancer. A literature search was conducted using Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE. Information from 36 studies was summarized. There is strong evidence across the included studies of higher overall mortality and biochemical recurrence in current smokers diagnosed with prostate cancer. In addition, enhanced adverse effects following surgery, radiation, and hormone therapy have also been identified in current smokers of this population.

Treating Nicotine Dependence and Preventing Smoking Relapse in Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the well-documented harmful effects of smoking, many cancer patients continue to smoke. Smoking cessation is critical to address in this population given the associated increase in treatment toxicity, risk of second primary tumors, decrease in treatment response and higher disease-specific and all-cause mortality with continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis. This review seeks to summarize the latest recommendations and guidelines on smoking cessation treatment for patients diagnosed with cancer, and the evidence behind those recommendations.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the latest evidence for smoking cessation treatments for cancer patients and the clinical guidelines and recommendation available for oncologists and health care providers. The unique aspects of nicotine dependence among patients diagnosed with cancer, and key challenges and barriers that cancer survivors and health care providers experience when considering smoking cessation treatments, and available clinical resources, are also discussed. Lastly, the authors summarize future directions in the field of smoking cessation treatment for cancer patients.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

While there are areas of improvement in research of smoking cessation treatment for cancer patients, critical under-explored areas remain. Nonetheless, providers should adhere to the NCCN guidelines and offer a brief counseling intervention to motivate patients to quit smoking when appropriate resources are not available.

Tobacco-Related Health Disparities Across the Cancer Care Continuum

BACKGROUND

Use of tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status disproportionately experience tobacco-related disease and illness. Unique challenges and circumstances exist at each point in the cancer care continuum that may contribute to the greater cancer burden experienced by these groups.

METHODS

We reviewed tobacco-related disparities from cancer prevention to cancer survivorship. We also describe research that seeks to reduce tobacco-related disparities.

RESULTS

Racial/ethnic minorities and low-income individuals experience unique social and environmental contextual challenges such as greater environmental cues to smoke and greater levels of perceived stress and social discrimination. Clinical practice guidelines support the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling for racial and ethnic minorities, yet smoking cessation rates are lower in this group when compared with non-Hispanic whites. Superior efficacy for culturally adapted interventions has not yet been established.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce health disparities in this population, a comprehensive strategy is needed with efforts directed at each point along the cancer care continuum. Strategies are needed to reduce the impact of contextual factors such as targeted tobacco marketing and social discrimination on smoking initiation and maintenance. Future efforts should focus on increasing the use of evidence-based cessation treatment methods and studying its effectiveness in these populations. Attention must also be focused on improving treatment outcomes by reducing smoking in diverse racial and ethnic patient populations.

Tobacco-use Cessation Counseling Service Usage

Objectives

Tobacco-use is common among elderly lung cancer patients and continued tobacco-use can impact prognosis. This study evaluates patterns of receipt of Tobacco-use Cessation Counseling (TCC) services among these patients.

Methods

Using West Virginia Cancer Registry-Medicare linked database (2004-2007), we identified elderly patients with lung cancer (n = 922) and categorized them by receipt of TCC services. Hierarchical generalized logistic model was constructed and survival outcomes were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, Log-Rank test, and Cox proportional hazards modeling.

Results

Majority of patients (76.7%) received TCC services. Unadjusted analysis showed favorable survival outcomes in patients who received TCC services. However, adjusted lung cancer mortality risk was no different between the groups (HR (95% CI) = 1.78 (0.87-3.64)).

Conclusion

This study highlights the critical need to address disparities in receipt of TCC services among elderly. Although lung cancer preventive services are covered under the Medicare program, underutilization of these services is a concern.

Helping patients to reduce tobacco consumption in oncology: a narrative review

The present overview focuses on evidence of smoking cessation approaches in oncology settings with the aim to provide health personnel a critical perspective on how to help their patients. This narrative review is structured in two main sections: the first one describes the psycho-cognitive variables involved in the decision to continue smoking after a cancer diagnosis and during the treatment; the second section relates methods and tools may be recommended, being evidence-based, to support smoking cessation in oncology settings. Active smoking increases not only susceptibility to common cancers in the general population, but also increases disease severity and comorbidities in cancer patients. Nowadays, scientific evidence has identified many strategies to give up smoking, but a lack of knowledge exists for treatment of nicotine dependence in the cancer population. Health personnel is often ambiguous when approaching the problem, while their contribution is essential in guiding patients towards healthier choices. We argue that smoking treatments for cancer patients deserve more attention and that clinical features, individual characteristics and needs of the patient should be assessed in order to increase the attempts success rate. Health personnel that daily work and interact with cancer patients and their caregivers have a fundamental role in the promotion of the health changing. For this reason, it is important that they have adequate knowledge and resources in order to support cancer patients to stop tobacco cigarette smoking and promoting and healthier lifestyle.

Counseling Is Effective for Smoking Cessation in Head and Neck Cancer Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the efficacy of smoking cessation counseling and the resulting quit rate in patients with head and neck cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Predictor variables were smoking cessation counseling and smoking cessation interventions. The outcome was smoking cessation. Data collection and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 of the authors. Selected publications were assessed for potential risk of bias, and the level of evidence was evaluated using National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines. Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 1,239 patients were included (3 randomized controlled trials, 3 cohorts, and 2 case series). Smoking cessation was achieved considerably more often in patients who received smoking cessation counseling compared with those who received usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that counseling supplemented with nicotine replacement therapy increases the possibility for smoking cessation in patients with head and neck cancer.

Smoking cessation dialogue and the complementary therapist: reluctance to engage?

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to explore the experiences and views of complementary therapists (CT) regarding smoking cessation (SC) support within the oncology setting.

METHODS

Two oncology sites participated in the North West of England. Three focus groups were conducted (n = 19) with resulting transcripts thematically analysed. Demographic data was collected via a short questionnaire.

RESULTS

Reasons were given for reluctance to engage in SC support, these included; fear of comprising the therapeutic relationship, patient's poor motivation and/or those living with life limiting disease. Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) advice was regarded as a 'medical' activity. There was evidence of smoker-related stigmatisation.

CONCLUSION

This study provided insights in how complementary therapists view a potential SC role. Research is needed to determine whether the findings are common to other areas of CT practice. Further training in SC support is suggested for those working in oncology settings.

Tobacco use and cessation for cancer survivors: an overview for clinicians

Approximately 30% of all cancer deaths in the United States are caused by tobacco use and smoking. Cancers of eighteen sites have been causally linked to smoking, the most common of which are the lung, head and neck, bladder, and esophagus. While quit rates and quit attempt rates are relatively high shortly after a cancer diagnosis, the recidivism rates are also high. Therefore, screening, treating, and preventing relapse to tobacco use is imperative among patients with and survivors of cancer. To date, research has consistently shown that a combination of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions is needed to achieve the highest smoking cessation rates, with a recent emphasis on individualized treatment as a most promising approach. Challenges in health care systems, including the lack of appropriate resources and provider training, have slowed the progress in addition to important clinical considerations relevant to the treatment of tobacco dependence (eg, a high degree of comorbidity with psychiatric disorders and other substance use disorders). However, continued tobacco use has been shown to limit the effectiveness of major cancer treatments and to increase the risk of complications and of developing secondary cancers. The authors recommend that oncology providers screen all patients for tobacco use and refer users to specialized treatment when available. Alternatively, oncology clinicians can provide basic advice on tobacco use cessation and pharmacotherapy and/or referral to outside resources (eg, quitlines). Herein, the authors summarize the current knowledge on tobacco use and its treatment, with a focus on the related available evidence for patients with and survivors of cancer.

Smoking status, service use and associated factors among Japanese cancer survivors--a web-based survey

PURPOSE

This study aims to investigate smoking status and its associated factors among Japanese cancer survivors. We stretched our focus on association with health-related behaviors other than smoking (alcohol intake, physical exercise, and social activity) and the smoking cessation strategies used by cancer survivors.

METHODS

An anonymous cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted, enrolling survivors of various types of cancer up to 10 years after diagnosis. Smoking status, socioeconomic status, health-related behaviors other than smoking, and smoking cessation resource that the participants used were evaluated. Factors associated with continuous smoking after cancer diagnosis were explored using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Among 168 participants who were smoking at the time of cancer diagnosis, 96 participants (57.1 %) continued smoking. Sixty-seven survivors (69.8 %) were willing to reduce or quit smoking, however, only 39 survivors (40.6 %) were provided with counseling or intervention on smoking cessation. Male gender, shorter time after cancer diagnosis, and lack of regular physical exercise associated with continuous smoking. Higher level of fear of cancer recurrence had trend-level significance of association with smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial proportions of Japanese cancer survivors continue smoking after diagnosis of cancer. The majority of them are not provided with relevant information or support, despite their willingness of reducing or quitting smoking. Smoking cessation is associated with other health behaviors (i.e., physical exercise). This suggests considerable missed opportunities for health-care providers to provide cancer survivors with counseling and evidence-based interventions. Promotion of professional support on smoking cessation and education to encourage healthy behaviors are needed.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least three reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Secondly, nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Finally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways (e.g. inhibiting monoamine oxidase) or receptors (e.g. blockade of nicotinic-cholinergic receptors) underlying nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect and safety of antidepressant medications to aid long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; lazabemide; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine (SAMe); selegiline; sertraline; St. John's wort; tryptophan; venlafaxine; and zimeledine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation or to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four new trials were identified since the 2009 update, bringing the total number of included trials to 90. There were 65 trials of bupropion and ten trials of nortriptyline, with the majority at low or unclear risk of bias. There was high quality evidence that, when used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion significantly increased long-term cessation (44 trials, N = 13,728, risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 1.76). There was moderate quality evidence, limited by a relatively small number of trials and participants, that nortriptyline also significantly increased long-term cessation when used as the sole pharmacotherapy (six trials, N = 975, RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion (12 trials, N = 3487, RR 1.9, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51) or nortriptyline (4 trials, N = 1644, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55) to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provides an additional long-term benefit. Based on a limited amount of data from direct comparisons, bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to NRT (bupropion versus nortriptyline 3 trials, N = 417, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; bupropion versus NRT 8 trials, N = 4096, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; no direct comparisons between nortriptyline and NRT). Pooled results from four trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed significantly lower quitting with bupropion than with varenicline (N = 1810, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83). Meta-analyses did not detect a significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events amongst participants taking bupropion, though the confidence interval only narrowly missed statistical significance (33 trials, N = 9631, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.69). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Bupropion has been associated with suicide risk, but whether this is causal is unclear. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation.There was no evidence of a significant effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on their own (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22, N = 1594; 2 trials fluoxetine, 1 paroxetine, 1 sertraline) or as an adjunct to NRT (3 trials of fluoxetine, N = 466, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.82). Significant effects were also not detected for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.79, N = 827; 1 trial moclobemide, 5 selegiline), the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine (1 trial, N = 147, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.32), the herbal therapy St John's wort (hypericum) (2 trials, N = 261, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53), or the dietary supplement SAMe (1 trial, N = 120, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation. Adverse events with either medication appear to rarely be serious or lead to stopping medication. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Evidence also suggests that bupropion is less effective than varenicline, but further research is needed to confirm this finding. Evidence suggests that neither selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) nor monoamine oxidase inhibitors aid cessation.

Factors associated with smoking abstinence among smokers and recent-quitters with lung and head and neck cancer

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation among cancer patients is critical for improving outcomes. Understanding factors associated with smoking abstinence after the diagnosis of cancer can provide direction to develop and test interventions to enhance cessation rates. The purpose of this study was to identify determinants of smoking outcomes among cancer patients.

METHODS

Standardized questionnaires were used to collect data from 163 smokers or recent-quitters (quit≤6 months) at study entry of which 132 and 121 had data collected at 3 and 6 months. Biochemical verification was conducted with urinary cotinine and carbon monoxide. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha coefficients, Pearson correlations, Fisher's exact test, and multivariable logistic regression were used for analyses.

RESULTS

Seven-day-point-prevalence-abstinence (PPA) rates were 90/132 (68%) at 3 months; 46/71 (65%) among lung and 44/61 (72%) among head and neck cancer patients, whereas 7-day-PPA rates were 74/121 (61%) at 6 months; 31/58 (53%) among lung and 43/63 (68%) among head and neck cancer patients. Continuous abstinence rates were 63/89 (71%) at 3 months; 32/45 (71%) among lung and 31/44 (70%) among head and neck cancer patients, whereas continuous abstinence rates were 46/89 (52%) at 6 months; 18/45 (40%) among lung and 28/44 (64%) among head and neck cancer patients. Lower cancer-related, psychological and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were associated with increased 7-D-PPA abstinence rates at 3 and 6 months in univariate models. In multivariable models, however, decreased craving was significantly related with 7-day-PPA at 3 months and decreased craving and increased self-efficacy were associated with 7-D-PPA at 6 months. Decreased craving was the only factor associated with continuous abstinence at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking outcomes among lung and head and neck cancer patients appear to have remained the same over the last two decades despite the availability of an increased number of pharmacotherapy options to treat tobacco dependence. Decreased craving and increased self-efficacy were the most consistent factors associated with improved smoking outcomes but symptom control may also play a role in optimal management. Use of combined, and/or higher doses of pharmacotherapy along with behavioral interventions that increase self-efficacy and manage symptoms may promote enhanced cessation rates.

Survivors at higher risk for adverse late outcomes due to psychosocial and behavioral risk factors

Cancer survivors face significant morbidity and mortality associated with their disease and treatment regimens, some of which can be improved through modifying behavioral and psychosocial risk factors. This article examines risk factors for adverse late effects that contribute to morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors, provides a literature review on interventions to modify these risks factors, and summarizes the national recommendations and associated current practices for identifying and managing these risk factors. Finally, future directions for research and clinical practice are discussed.

Predictors of smoking cessation among cancer patients enrolled in a smoking cessation program

Many cancer patients continue to smoke postdiagnosis, which is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Identifying prospective predictors of smoking cessation among patients currently receiving smoking cessation treatment can help guide the development and implementation of smoking cessation programs with this population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from 246 cancer patients participating in a randomized placebo-controlled smoking cessation clinical trial were used to examine baseline predictors of end-of-treatment and six-month postbaseline smoking cessation outcomes. Baseline demographic, smoking-related, disease-related, and psychological variables were examined as predictors of biochemically-confirmed point-prevalence abstinence.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis indicated that, for end-of-treatment abstinence, patients were significantly more likely to have quit smoking if they were older (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.10, p < 0.05) and were diagnosed with a non-tobacco related cancer (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.24-5.20, p < 0.05). Likewise, for six-month abstinence, patients were significantly more likely to have quit smoking if they were older (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.08, p < 0.05) and were significantly less likely to have quit smoking if they were female (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.22-0.97, p < 0.05). Patients with tobacco-related cancers and female patients reported significantly higher levels of depression symptoms (p < 0.05), which proved predictive of smoking relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient age, gender, and cancer-type may be important factors to consider when developing and implementing smoking cessation interventions for cancer patients.

Impact of limited population diversity of genome-wide association studies

The article describes the limited population diversity of genome-wide association studies and its resulting impact on the development of commercial genetic tests with restricted applicability and usefulness to certain groups, potentially increasing existing disparities. To enable development of new clinical tools applicable to all groups, much more focus is needed to engage minority communities to enroll in genetics or genomic research studies and on investigators to reach out to underrepresented communities.

A bupropion smoking cessation clinical trial for cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Many cancer patients continue to smoke post diagnosis, yet there have been few smoking cessation trials for this population. Depression, which is prevalent among cancer patients, may be a barrier to cessation.

METHODS

This double-blind placebo-controlled trial randomized 246 cancer patients to 9 weeks of placebo or bupropion, stratifying by pre-treatment depression symptoms. In addition, all patients received transdermal nicotine and behavioral counseling. Primary outcomes were 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, biochemically confirmed, at the end of treatment (Week 12), and at 6 months post quit day (Week 27). Additional outcomes included: withdrawal, affect, quality of life, compliance, and side effects.

RESULTS

There was no main effect of bupropion vs. placebo on abstinence (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.38-4.81, p = .64). Patients with depression symptoms reported significantly lower abstinence rates vs. patients without depression symptoms (OR = .14, 95% CI: 0.02-0.80, p = .03). Bupropion increased abstinence rates, vs. placebo, more for participants with depression vs. those without depression symptoms. For patients with depression symptoms, bupropion reduced withdrawal symptoms and improved quality of life vs. placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with depression symptoms, bupropion increases abstinence rates, lowers withdrawal, and increases quality of life. However, abstinence rates among patients with depression symptoms were low vs. patients without depression symptoms, who exhibited similar abstinence rates when treated with bupropion or transdermal nicotine and counseling alone. These results can guide future smoking cessation intervention studies with cancer patients.

Smoking status and pain level among head and neck cancer patients

Smoking is a risk factor for cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract with recidivism rates high even after diagnosis. Nicotine, a major product in tobacco, is a complex drug with multiple characteristics including analgesic properties. The goal of the study was to examine pain levels in the context of smoking status among patients recently diagnosed with cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract who have not yet received any treatment including radiation, surgery, or chemotherapy. A convenience sample of 112 newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients (78 men and 34 women) was recruited from clinics at the University of Florida. Smoking rates were: 32% never smoked, 34% former smokers, 34% current smokers. Among current smokers, 62% reported plans to quit in the next 3 months and 38% had tried to quit more than 3 times in the past 5 years. Current smokers reported higher general (sensory and affective) and oral pain levels (spontaneous and functional) and pain-related interference than did never and former smokers (all F's > 8. and P's < .0001) even after controlling for stage of diagnosis. In addition, current smokers reported significantly greater interference from the pain (F(2,73) = 10.5 P < .0001).

PERSPECTIVE

This study highlights the importance of understanding self-reported pain in cancer patients who continue to smoke. When pain is elevated, smokers may be motivated to use tobacco as a means of reducing pain, which in turn reinforces smoking behavior. Tobacco cessation programs should include pain management as a component of treatment.

Smoking cessation interventions in cancer care: opportunities for oncology nurses and nurse scientists

Smoking cessation is essential after the diagnosis of cancer to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a systematic review of research on smoking cessation in the context of cancer care with an emphasis on nursing contributions to the field. Data sources included research reports of smoking cessation interventions conducted in people with cancer. Nineteen primary studies were reviewed. High intensity interventions, targeting multiple behaviors, and/or using a multicomponent intervention that included pharmacotherapy, behavioral counseling, and social support were characteristics of the most successful treatments for tobacco dependence. The majority of interventions were conducted in adults with smoking-related malignancies during acute phases of illness. The most striking finding was that more than one half of the studies tested the efficacy of nurse-delivered interventions. Conceptual and methodological issues that can be improved in future studies include: using theoretical frameworks to specify how the intervention will affect outcomes, ensuring adequate sample sizes, using biochemical verification to monitor smoking outcomes, and using standardized outcome measures of abstinence. Although effective interventions are available for healthy populations, further research is needed to determine if tailored cessation interventions are needed for patients with cancer. To provide optimal quality care it is imperative that delivery of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions be integrated into the cancer treatment trajectory. Multiple barriers, including patient and nurse attitudes toward smoking and lack of knowledge related to tobacco treatment, prevent translating evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment into clinical practice. Further nursing research is needed to address these barriers.