It's never too late: Smoking cessation after stereotactic body radiation therapy for non-small cell lung carcinoma improves overall survival

Associations of Microvascular Risk Factors with Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma Outcomes Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery

OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is increasingly used for small-to-medium-sized sporadic vestibular schwannoma (VS) and is associated with good tumor control and low-risk of adverse radiation-associated events. The exact mechanism of VS tumor control is unknown but may relate to microvascular hyalinization and resultant tumoral ischemia. This study examined associations of microvascular risk factors with outcomes following SRS.

DESIGN

Historical cohort of patients who underwent SRS for sporadic VS from 2000 to 2022.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

METHODS

Associations of microvascular risk factors with tumor control and complications were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

In total 749 patients were studied, 31% with a history of smoking, 38% obesity, 19% hypertension, 8% diabetes, 3% peripheral vascular disease, and 2% history of coronary bypass. Regarding tumor control, no factor was associated with salvage treatment following SRS (n = 42). Hypertension (hazard ratio [HR] 2.81; P = .02) and coronary bypass (HR 6.91; P = .002) were significantly associated with developing facial nerve paresis (n = 22). No significant associations with new facial spasms (n = 53) were identified. Lastly, 191 of 294 patients with serviceable hearing at SRS progressed to nonserviceable hearing at a median 2.0 years (interquartile range: 1.0-5.0). After multivariable adjustment for age and ipsilateral hearing status, the HR for the association of smoking history with time to nonserviceable hearing was 1.46 (95% confidence interval 1.04-2.04; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that hypertension and history of coronary bypass may be associated with development of facial nerve weakness, while smoking may be associated with accelerated hearing loss in patients undergoing SRS for sporadic VS. These data may help guide patient counseling and inform decision-making regarding treatment.

Smoking Cessation Practices in Australian Oncology Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study of Who, How, and When

PURPOSE

Patients who smoke tobacco during and after a cancer diagnosis have poorer health outcomes. Oncology healthcare providers (HCPs) are crucial to providing smoking cessation support. The study examined the characteristics associated with differences in HCPs' smoking cessation practices.

METHODS

As part of the Care to Quit trial, a cross-sectional survey exploring smoking cessation practices was completed by HCPs across nine cancer centers in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-seven HCPs completed the survey. Over half of the HCP respondents reported asking patients their smoking status, but fewer than half advised patients about the benefits of quitting, referred patients to behavioral support such as Quitline, or offered pharmacotherapy medication. All components of the "3A's" model (Ask, Advise, Act) were more likely to be completed by doctors compared to registered nurses (OR: 7.86, 95% CI: 3.64, 16.95, p<0.001), by those with more years of practice (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.93, p = 0.039), and those who had received smoking cessation training (OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 1.80, 8.48, p = 0.001). Multivariate analyses also identified differences in the amount of cancer-specific advice provided between occupation type (p<0.001) and years of practice (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

The need for smoking cessation care training in oncology continues to be apparent. Training in prescribing pharmacotherapies (for doctors) or supporting the use of pharmacotherapies (for nurses) is a particular "gap." Differences between the roles and engagement of doctors and nurses in relation to smoking cessation care should be carefully considered when developing site-specific models of cessation care and providing training.

Impact of smoking cessation duration on lung cancer mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking history is a heterogeneous situation for different populations, and numerous studies suggest that smoking cessation is conducive to reduce the mortality of lung cancer. However, no quantitative meta-analysis regarding smoking cessation duration based on different populations has demonstrated it clearly.

METHODS

We systematically searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scoups) till February 2023. Eligible studies reported the association between lung cancer survival and duration of smoking cessation. Additionally, we stratified the study population according to whether they had lung cancer at the time they quit smoking. Studies were pooled with the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Out of the 11,361 potential studies initially identified, we included 24 studies involving 969,560 individuals in our analysis. Lung cancer mortality varied across two groups: general quitters and peri-diagnosis quitters. For general quitters, those who had quit smoking for less than 10 years exhibited an RR of 0.64 (95% CI [0.55-0.76]), while those who quit for 10-20 years had an RR of 0.33 (0.25-0.43), over 20 years had an RR of 0.16 (0.11-0.24), and never-smokers had an RR at 0.11 (0.07-0.15). Among peri-diagnosis quitters, the 1-year Overall Survival (OS) showed an RR of 0.80 (0.67-0.96), the 2-year OS had an RR of 0.89 (0.80-0.98), the 3-year OS had an RR of 0.93 (0.84-1.03), and the 5-year OS had an RR of 0.85 (0.76-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier and longer smoking cessation is associated with reduced lung cancer mortality, no matter in which cessation stage for two different populations.

The Impact of Targetable Mutations on Clinical Outcomes of Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Hybrid Therapy (Surgery Followed by Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy)

BACKGROUND

In treatment of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), hybrid therapy, consisting of separation surgery, followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy, has become the mainstay of treatment for radioresistant pathologies, such as non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical outcomes of MESCC secondary to NSCLC treated with hybrid therapy and to identify clinical and molecular prognostic predictors.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective study. Adult patients (≥18 years old) with pathologically confirmed NSCLC and spinal metastasis who were treated with hybrid therapy for high-grade MESCC or nerve root compression from 2012 to 2019 are included. Outcome variables evaluated included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival, local tumor control in the competing risks setting, surgical and radiation complications, and clinical-genomic correlations.

RESULTS

One hundred and three patients met inclusion criteria. The median OS for this cohort was 6.5 months, with progression of disease noted in 5 (5%) patients at the index tumor level requiring reoperation and/or reirradiation at a mean of 802 days after postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy. The 2-year local control rate was 94.6% (95% CI: 89.8-99.3). Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment-naïve patients who initiated EGFR-targeted therapy after hybrid therapy had significantly longer OS (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = .04) even after adjusting for smoking status. The presence of EGFR exon 21 mutation was predictive of improved progression-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid therapy in NSCLC resulted in 95% local control at 2 years after surgery. EGFR treatment-naïve patients initiating therapy after hybrid therapy had significantly improved survival advantage. EGFR-targeted therapy initiated before hybrid therapy did not confer survival benefit.

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

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

Supplementary Information

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

A practical guide for perioperative smoking cessation

The perioperative management of patients who are smokers presents anesthesiologists with various challenges related to respiratory, circulatory, and other clinical problems. Regarding 30-day postoperative outcomes, smokers have higher risks of mortality and complications than non-smokers, including death, pneumonia, unplanned tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Given the benefits of smoking cessation and the adverse effects of smoking on perioperative patient management, patients should quit smoking long before surgery. However, anesthesiologists cannot address these issues alone. The Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists established guidelines in 2015 (published in a medical journal in 2017) to enlighten surgical staff members and patients regarding perioperative tobacco cessation. The primary objective of perioperative smoking cessation is to reduce the risks of adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events, wound infection, and other perioperative complications. Perioperative preparations constitute a powerful teachable moment, a "golden opportunity" for smoking cessation to achieve improved primary disease outcomes and prevent the occurrence of tobacco-related conditions. This review updates the aforementioned guidelines as a practical guide to cover the nuts and bolts of perioperative smoking cessation. Its goal is to assist surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other medical professionals and to increase patients' awareness of smoking risks before elective surgery.

The prognostic impact of the smoking status of cancer patients receiving systemic treatment, radiation therapy, and surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking represents the main risk factor for cancer development; however, less is known about the effects of active smoking on the outcome of cancer patients receiving systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted searching the PubMed® and Web of Science® Library databases using specific Medical Subject Headings terms. Studies reporting on the prognostic impact of the smoking status concerning survival endpoints in cancer patients treated with systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Of 1.380 articles reviewed, 12 reports including data from 31.785 patients with six different cancer types were considered eligible for inclusion. According to the meta-analysis of the overall effect, active smoking during cancer treatment was associated with an impaired overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) as compared to former or never smokers (OS: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.19-2.17, p = 0.007; CSM: HR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.01-1.54, p = 0.046). Moreover, smoking cessation led to a similar OS and CSM when comparing former to never smoking patients (OS: HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.87-1.18, p = 0.818; CSM: HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.91-1.20, p = 0.324).

CONCLUSION

These results underline active smoking during cancer treatment as an independent adverse prognostic factor, while smoking cessation can result in similar outcomes compared to never smokers. Limitations of the study were a substantial study heterogeneity concerning different cancer entities and variations of treatment modalities.

Quitting Smoking At or Around Diagnosis Improves the Overall Survival of Lung Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer (LC) remains a disease with poor prognosis despite recent advances in treatments. Here, we aimed at summarizing the current scientific evidence on whether quitting smoking at or around diagnosis has a beneficial effect on the survival of LC patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published until 31st October, 2021, that quantified the impact on LC patients' survival of quitting smoking at or around diagnosis or during treatment. Study-specific data were pooled into summary relative risk (SRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect meta-analysis models.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles published between 1980 and 2021 were included, which encompassed a total of over 10,000 LC patients. There was substantial variability across studies in terms of design, patients' characteristics, treatments received, criteria used to define smoking status (quitters or continued), and duration of follow-up. Quitting smoking at or around diagnosis was significantly associated with improved overall survival (SRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.80), consistently among patients with non-small cell LC (SRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90, n studies = 8), small cell LC (SRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.99, n studies = 4), or LC of both or unspecified histological type (SRR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96, n studies = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

Quitting smoking at or around diagnosis is associated with a beneficial effect on the survival of LC patients. Treating physicians should educate LC patients about the benefits of quitting smoking even after diagnosis and provide them with the necessary smoking cessation support.

Impact of Tobacco Smoking on Outcomes of Radiotherapy: A Narrative Review

The carcinogenic role of tobacco smoking is well recognized, but the detrimental effects of continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis have been underestimated. Radiotherapy is among the main treatment modalities for cancer. We reviewed the literature data concerning the impact of tobacco smoking on treatment outcomes in radiotherapy-managed patients with various malignancies. Most of the analyzed studies demonstrated the detrimental effect of smoking on overall survival, tumor control, quality of life, treatment toxicity, and the incidence of second primary malignancies. Healthcare professionals should use the cancer diagnosis and treatment as a teachable moment and recommend their patients to immediately cease smoking. Wherever possible, cancer patients should undergo an intensive smoking-cessation program, including behavioral and pharmacologic therapy.

Postdiagnosis Smoking Cessation and Reduced Risk for Lung Cancer Progression and Mortality : A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, and about one half of patients with lung cancer are active smokers at diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether quitting smoking after diagnosis of lung cancer affects the risk for disease progression and mortality.

DESIGN

Prospective study of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were recruited between 2007 and 2016 and followed annually through 2020.

SETTING

N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology and City Clinical Oncological Hospital No. 1, Moscow, Russia.

PATIENTS

517 current smokers who were diagnosed with early-stage (IA-IIIA) NSCLC.

MEASUREMENTS

Probabilities of overall survival, progression-free survival, and lung cancer-specific mortality and hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause and cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

During an average of 7 years of follow-up, 327 (63.2%) deaths, 273 (52.8%) cancer-specific deaths, and 172 (33.7%) cases of tumor progression (local recurrence or metastasis) were recorded. The adjusted median overall survival time was 21.6 months higher among patients who had quit smoking than those who continued smoking (6.6 vs. 4.8 years, respectively; P = 0.001). Higher 5-year overall survival (60.6% vs. 48.6%; P = 0.001) and progression-free survival (54.4% vs. 43.8%; P = 0.004) were observed among patients who quit than those who continued smoking. After adjustments, smoking cessation remained associated with decreased risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.85]), cancer-specific mortality (HR, 0.75 [CI, 0.58 to 0.98]), and disease progression (HR, 0.70 [CI, 0.56 to 0.89]). Similar effects were observed among mild to moderate and heavy smokers and patients with earlier and later cancer stages.

LIMITATION

Exposure measurements were based on self-reported questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation after diagnosis materially improved overall and progression-free survival among current smokers with early-stage lung cancer.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

Background

The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications.

Methods

We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020. We analyzed operating costs by resource category (e.g., personnel, medications) concurrently with transcripts from semi-structured key-informant interviews conducted during site visits. Personnel salary costs were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data adjusted for area and occupation, and non-wage benefits. Qualitative findings provided additional information on intangible resources and contextual factors related to implementation costs.

Results

Median total monthly operating costs across funded centers were $11,045 (range: $5129–$20,751). The largest median operating cost category was personnel ($10,307; range: $4122–$19,794), with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications ($17–$573), materials ($6–$435), training ($96–$516), technology ($171–$2759), and equipment ($10–$620). Median cost-per-participant was $466 (range: $70–$2093) and cost-per-quit was $2688 (range: $330–$9628), with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components. Site interviews provided context for understanding variations in program components and their cost implications.

Conclusions

Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs.

The cost of failed first-line cancer treatment related to continued smoking in Canada

Background

Smoking by cancer patients and survivors causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes, but little information is available about how smoking can affect cancer treatment costs.

Methods

We developed a model to estimate attributable cancer treatment failure because of continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis (afs). Canadian health system data were used to determine the additional treatment cost for afs for the most common cancers in Canada.

Results

Of 206,000 patients diagnosed with cancer annually, an estimated 4789 experienced afs. The annual incremental cost associated with treating patients experiencing afs was estimated at between $198 million and $295 million (2017 Canadian dollars), reflecting an added incremental cost of $4,810-$7,162 per patient who continued to smoke. Analyses according to disease site demonstrated higher incremental costs where the smoking prevalence and the cost of individual second-line cancer treatment were highest. Of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers, lung cancer was associated with the highest incremental cost for treatment after afs.

Conclusions

The costs associated with afs in Canada after a cancer diagnosis are considerable. Populations in which the smoking prevalence and treatment costs are high are expected to benefit the most from efforts aimed at increasing smoking cessation capacity for patients newly diagnosed with cancer.

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.

Mitigating the adverse health effects and costs associated with smoking after a cancer diagnosis

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis causes adverse outcomes and is associated with substantial additional treatment cost. Mitigation of the adverse effects of smoking require active commitment from health systems, providers, and patients. Three areas of mitigation are discussed: (I) smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis to improve cancer treatment outcomes; (II) identifying optimal cancer treatment strategies for patients who smoke at the time of diagnosis; and (III) how health systems can prioritize the effect modification caused by smoking. As innovation continues for healthcare delivery, priority should be placed on interventions that reduce the effect modification and associated costs caused by continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis.

Attributable Failure of First-line Cancer Treatment and Incremental Costs Associated With Smoking by Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Previous studies have shown that continued smoking among patients with cancer can increase overall and cancer-specific mortality, risk for second primary cancer, and risk for toxic effects of cancer treatment. To our knowledge, there have been no efforts to estimate additional costs for cancer treatment attributed to smoking.

OBJECTIVE

To model attributable incremental costs of subsequent cancer treatment associated with continued smoking by patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this economic evaluation, a model was developed in 2018 using data from a 2014 US Surgeon General's report that considered expected failure rates of first-line cancer treatment in nonsmoking patients, smoking prevalence, odds ratio of first-line cancer treatment failure attributed to smoking compared with nonsmoking, and cost of cancer treatment after failure of first-line cancer treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Attributable failures of first-line cancer treatment and incremental cost for subsequent treatment associated with continued smoking among patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Attributable treatment failures were higher under conditions in which high first-line cure rates were expected in nonsmoking patients compared with conditions in which low cure rates were expected. Peak attributable failures occurred under the conditions in which expected cure rates among nonsmoking patients ranged from 50% to 65%. Under the conditions of a 30% expected treatment failure rate among nonsmoking patients, 20% smoking prevalence, 60% increased risk of failure of first-line cancer treatment, and $100 000 mean added cost of treating a first-line cancer treatment failure, the additional incremental cost per 1000 total patients was estimated to be $2.1 million, reflecting an additional cost of $10 678 per smoking patient. Extrapolation of cost to 1.6 million patients with cancer diagnosed annually reflects a potential $3.4 billion in incremental cost.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that continued smoking among patients with cancer and the increase in attributable first-line cancer treatment failure is associated with significant incremental costs for subsequent cancer treatments. Additional work appears to be needed to identify optimal methods to mitigate these incremental costs.

Smoking cessation attitudes and practices among cancer survivors - United States, 2015

PURPOSE

The prevalence of smoking among cancer survivors is similar to the general population. However, there is little evidence on the prevalence of specific smoking cessation behaviors among adult cancer survivors.

METHODS

The 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data were analyzed to examine the prevalence of smoking cessation behaviors and use of treatments among cancer survivors. Weighted self-reported prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a sample of 2527 cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Among this sample of US cancer survivors, 12% were current smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 51% were never smokers. Compared with former and never smokers, current smokers were younger (< 65 years), less educated, and less likely to report being insured or Medicaid health insurance (p < 0.01). More males were former smokers than current or never smokers. Current smokers reported wanting to quit (57%), a past year quit attempt (49%), or a health professional advised them to quit (66%). Current smokers reported the use of smoking cessation counseling (8%) or medication (38%).

CONCLUSIONS

Even after a cancer diagnosis, about one in eight cancer survivors continued to smoke. All could have received advice to quit smoking by a health professional, but a third did not.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Health professionals could consistently advise cancer survivors about the increased risks associated with continued smoking, provide them with cessation counseling and medications, refer them to other free cessation resources, and inform them of cessation treatments covered by their health insurance.

Smoking cessation among men following cancer diagnosis: a matched cohort study

PURPOSE

Cigarette smoking among cancer survivors increases the risk of recurrence and secondary cancers. We sought to investigate smoking cessation following diagnosis of cancer compared to those not diagnosed with cancer. We also investigated cessation following diagnosis of a smoking-related and non-smoking-related cancer separately.

METHODS

We conducted a matched cohort study within the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS). We identified 566 men diagnosed with cancer who were current cigarette smokers at the time of diagnosis between 1986 and 2010 (exposed). Men diagnosed with cancer were age-matched 1:4 to men without a diagnosis of cancer who were also current cigarette smokers (unexposed). Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to evaluate the association between a cancer diagnosis and smoking cessation within 2 and 4 years post diagnosis adjusted for potential confounders, overall and for smoking-related and non-smoking-related cancers.

RESULTS

Of the men with cancer, 38% quit within 2 years and 42% within 4 years of diagnosis. Men diagnosed with cancer were more likely to quit smoking within 2 (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 2.0-3.0) and 4 years (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-2.0) post diagnosis, compared to matched men without cancer. The association was similar for smoking-related (OR = 3.4, 95%: 1.6-7.2) and non-smoking-related cancers (OR = 3.8, 95%: 2.8-5.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Men diagnosed with cancer were more likely to quit smoking compared to men not diagnosed with cancer. A cancer diagnosis may be a "teachable moment" in which strategies to promote smoking cessation for individuals diagnosed with smoking-related and non-smoking-related cancers should be investigated.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is a continued need for the widespread implementation of cessation interventions for cancer survivors.

Defining Optimal Comorbidity Measures for Patients With Early-Stage Non-small cell lung cancer Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Comparison of overall survival (OS) between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and other treatments for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer is confounded by differences in age, performance status, and medical comorbidity. We sought to define the most robust measurement for this population among 5 indices: age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and age-adjusted CCI (CCIa).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 548 patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were analyzed. Patients were divided into high- and low-risk groups for OS for each index using the log-rank test. Continuous and dichotomized models were compared via Akaike information criterion and the Vuong test. Multivariate Cox regression modeling was used with demographic information to determine the independent prognostic value of the continuous and dichotomized versions of the indices. The best was used to stratify the patients into as many significantly different cohorts as possible.

RESULTS

Optimal cut-points between high-risk and low-risk OS groups for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27, CCI, and CCIa were ≥75 years, ≥1, ≥3, ≥3, and ≥6 with hazard ratios for death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.50), 1.66 (1.28-2.15), 1.37 (1.12-1.67), 1.43 (1.17-1.76), and 1.47 (1.20-1.80), respectively. Dichotomizing did not result in a significant loss of prognostic power. Although there was no significant difference in prognostic power among the indices, CCIa best predicted OS. CCIa divided the patients into 3 cohorts with median OS of 42 months, 33 months, and 23 months for scores of ≤5, 6 to 7, and ≥8, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CCIa was the best indicator of OS in every model employed with no loss of prognostic power with dichotomization. Dichotomization of CCIa (≥6) could be implemented in future comparisons of SBRT with OS. No cohort could be identified with a median survival of less than a year, for which treatment could be deemed futile.

Cancer-related disease factors and smoking cessation treatment: Analysis of an ongoing clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Smoking cessation treatment should be an important aspect of cancer care. In this study, we evaluated whether cancer-related disease factors adversely influence smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

Smokers with cancer (within 5 years of diagnosis, any tumor site) were recruited for an ongoing trial of varenicline for smoking cessation. Disease factors, assessed at baseline, included tumor site, cancer treatment, time since diagnosis, and health-related quality of life. Medication adherence was defined by 132 of 165 pills taken and counseling adherence was defined by 4 of 4 behavioral counseling sessions attended. Abstinence was bioverified at Week 12. Using logistic regression analysis, we assessed the relationship between disease factors and 12-week medication adherence, counseling adherence, and abstinence.

RESULTS

Of 144 participants, 56% were medication adherent, 74% were counseling adherent, and 39% were abstinent. Health-related quality of life predicted medication adherence (OR: 1.08, 95% CI, 1.01-1.16, P = .019, d = 0.20) but not counseling adherence or 12-week abstinence. Tumor site, cancer treatment, and time since diagnosis did not predict any smoking cessation treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer-related disease factors did not predict cancer survivors' engagement or success in smoking cessation treatment. Findings support National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice guidelines that recommend smoking cessation treatment for all smokers with cancer, regardless of time since diagnosis.