Efficacy of a tobacco quitline among adult cancer survivors

Tobacco Cessation Interventions in Non-Respiratory Cancers: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Considering the high rates of persistent tobacco use, effective cessation interventions are needed for cancer patients and caregivers. Despite the need, there is a significant lack of research on tobacco cessation, especially for non-respiratory cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and bladder cancer).

PURPOSE

The objective was to evaluate tobacco use and tobacco cessation interventions among patients and caregivers for non-respiratory cancers.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions were identified. Five electronic databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through July 2023. Studies exclusive to lung, oral, thoracic, and head and neck cancers were excluded. Effect sizes were estimated; risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3,304 studies, 17 were included. Interventions included behavioral (n = 6), pharmacotherapy (n = 2), and a combination (n = 9) treatment. Eight studies included a health behavior model; mean behavioral change techniques were 5.57. Pooled magnitude of the odds of cessation was positive and significant (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [Lower Limit 1.02, Upper Limit 1.51]) relative to usual care/placebo. Cumulative meta-analysis examined the accumulation of results over-time and demonstrated that studies have been significant since 2020. Two studies included caregivers' who were involved in the provision of social support.

CONCLUSIONS

Current interventions have the potential to reduce tobacco use in non-respiratory cancers. Results may be beneficial for promoting tobacco cessation among non-respiratory cancers. There is a considerable lack of dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers; researchers are encouraged to explore dyadic approaches.

A randomized controlled trial to reduce post-cessation weight gain

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Weight gain is a barrier to smoking cessation. Previous interventions targeting weight gain while quitting smoking have largely been unsuccessful. The current study aimed to assess the efficacy of weight stability and weight loss interventions compared to a low-intensity, self-guided bibliotherapy weight management group.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

A randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up from 2018 to 2022 was conducted with participants (N = 305) who reported smoking at least five cigarettes per day for the last year and interest in quitting initially recruited from the Memphis, TN, USA area. Recruitment was expanded nationally with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, 276 completed 12-month follow-up.

INTERVENTIONS/METHODS

The Bibliotherapy group was provided a weight management book. Both the Stability and Loss groups met via telephone for eight weeks to learn strategies for maintaining/losing weight, respectively. All three groups then received the same six-week smoking cessation intervention, with six months of varenicline provided.

RESULTS

Individuals in the Loss group lost more weight (-2.01 kg, SE = 1.58) than individuals in the Bibliotherapy group (+1.08 kg, SE = 1.49, p = 0.0004), while the Stability group (-0.30 kg, SE = 1.56) was not significantly different from the Bibliotherapy group (p = 0.17). Those in the Stability group did not gain a significant amount of weight. Participants in the Loss group did not gain back all weight lost after smoking cessation and ended the study approximately 2.01 kg lower than baseline. The Bibliotherapy group did not gain the amount of weight expected after cessation. There were no significant differences between groups related to self-reported smoking cessation at each time point except at eight-month follow-up (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results indicated the Stability and the Loss interventions were effective for preventing post-smoking cessation weight gain, with the Loss group having the benefit of sustained weight loss. These interventions may be helpful to implement to combat weight gain and potentially facilitate smoking cessation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03156660).

Associations between Cigarette Smoking and Health-Related Quality of Life in Adult Survivors of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer

This cross-sectional, secondary data analysis examines the association between cigarette smoking and self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult survivors of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer. Pooled data for survivors of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer (N = 1495) were drawn from the 2016 and 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey. Binary logistic regression models were utilized to examine independent associations between each of the four HRQoL domains (i.e., self-related general health, activity limitation days, poor physical, and mental health days) and cigarette smoking. Of the 1495 Adolescent and Young Adult Onset Cancer Survivors (AYAO-CS) in this study, approximately 30% reported currently smoking cigarettes. Relative to never smokers, the odds of reporting fair/poor general health were significantly higher for current and former smokers: (OR = 3.95, 95% CI: 2.08-7.50) and (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.46-4.32), respectively. Likewise, current smokers were significantly more likely to report frequent days of poor physical health (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.38-5.65). The study findings suggest a significant cross-sectional association between cigarette smoking and poor health-related quality of life in adult survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer. These findings, although cross-sectional, underscore the need for prospective studies to examine the longitudinal association between HRQoL and cigarette smoking among cancer survivors. Findings also help establish both the need for smoking cessation programs and the importance of effective strategies for addressing HRQoL issues among cancer survivors.

Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Cost-Utility of a Digital Smoking Cessation Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Health Economic Evaluation and Outcomes of a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Smoking cessation (SC) interventions may contribute to better treatment outcomes and the general well-being of cancer survivors.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility of a digital interactive SC intervention compared with a noninteractive web-based information brochure for cancer survivors.

Methods

A health economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic 2-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted with follow-ups at 3, 6, and 12 months. The study was conducted in the Netherlands over the internet from November 2016 to September 2019. The participants were Dutch adult smoking cancer survivors with the intention to quit smoking. In total, 165 participants were included and analyzed: 83 (50.3%) in the MyCourse group and 82 (49.7%) in the control group. In the intervention group, participants had access to a newly developed, digital, minimally guided SC intervention (MyCourse-Quit Smoking). Control group participants received a noninteractive web-based information brochure on SC. Both groups received unrestricted access to usual care. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day smoking abstinence at the 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years gained, number of cigarettes smoked, nicotine dependence, and treatment satisfaction. For the health economic evaluation, intervention costs, health care costs, and costs stemming from productivity losses were assessed over a 12-month horizon.

Results

At the 6-month follow-up, the quit rates were 28% (23/83) and 26% (21/82) in the MyCourse and control groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.86; P=.60). In both groups, nicotine dependence scores were reduced at 12 months, and the number of smoked cigarettes was reduced by approximately half. The number of cigarettes decreased more over time, and the MyCourse group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction at the 12-month follow-up (incidence rate ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-1.00; P=.04). Intervention costs were estimated at US $193 per participant for the MyCourse group and US $74 for the control group. The mean per-participant societal costs were US $25,329 (SD US $29,137) and US $21,836 (SD US $25,792), respectively. In the cost-utility analysis, MyCourse was not preferred over the control group from a societal perspective. With smoking behavior as the outcome, the MyCourse group led to marginally better results per reduced pack-year against higher societal costs, with a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $52,067 (95% CI US $32,515-US $81,346).

Conclusions

At 6 months, there was no evidence of a differential effect on cessation rates; in both groups, approximately a quarter of the cancer survivors quit smoking and their number of cigarettes smoked was reduced by half. At 12 months, the MyCourse intervention led to a greater reduction in the number of smoked cigarettes, albeit at higher costs than for the control group. No evidence was found for a differential effect on quality-adjusted life years.

Trial Registration

The Netherlands Trial Register NTR6011; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5434

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1186/s12885-018-4206-z

Time to put it out - nurse-facilitated tobacco treatment in a comprehensive cancer center

Few cancer patients receive guideline-concordant care for treatment of tobacco dependence. The purpose of this pilot trial was to obtain preliminary estimates of effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention on the delivery of tobacco treatment and cessation outcomes in cancer patients. We conducted a pragmatic implementation trial with a before-after design in 119 current or recently quit adult smokers with cancer who met with a clinician at a single National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center (CCC) (n = 61 pre-implementation, n = 58 post-implementation). We used a multi-component strategy based on the Chronic Care Model to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation counseling during the index visit was assessed by exit interview and patients were interviewed by phone to assess cessation outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Performance of cessation counseling and 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) were compared across the pre- and post-implementation periods using log-logistic regression, accounting for clustering by nursing staff. More patients had received assistance in quitting at the index visit during the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (30 vs. 10%, p < .01). At 3-month follow-up, 38 and 14% of participants had discussed smoking cessation medication with a CCC healthcare professional and 57 and 27% of participants had used pharmacotherapy, respectively (p < .01 for both comparisons). Seven-day PPA at 3-month follow-up was similar in both periods, however (14 vs. 12%, respectively). A multi-component tobacco treatment intervention increased the proportion of smokers who received assistance in quitting smoking during usual cancer care but did not improve cessation outcomes.

Modern Perioperative Practices May Mitigate Effects of Continued Smoking Among Lung Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Though smokers are at an increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications following thoracic surgery, the relationship between cessation timing and postoperative pulmonary complications has not been explored in an era of enhanced recovery protocols and active tobacco cessation programs. Because a strong preference exists among thoracic surgeons to delay surgery to continued smokers, we sought to evaluate this relationship in a modern era.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lung resection for a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer from 2012-2017 were identified. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate preoperative tobacco cessation timing to determine the impact upon postoperative pulmonary complications.

RESULTS

1038 ever-smokers were identified. Patients were current smokers in 30 (3%) instances, and among former smokers, the preoperative cessation interval was 0-14 days in 10% (104), >14 days-1 month in 6% (62), >1 month-1 year in 18% (189), >1-5 years in 10% (107), and >5 years in 53% (546). Pulmonary complications were experienced by 269 (26%) patients. Multivariable analysis revealed that no group of recent or long-term quitters experienced superior outcomes in terms of pulmonary complications, when evaluating various periods of abstinence in comparison to continued smokers and active quitters.

CONCLUSIONS

In an era of enhanced recovery protocols, minimally invasive surgery, and active tobacco cessation programs which may help patients to cut back, our data do not support the practice of delaying or denying surgery to patients who have difficulty quitting completely. Perioperative cessation counseling should be aimed at long-term benefits, including reduction of disease recurrence and secondary malignancies.

Primary and Secondary Prevention of Lung Cancer: Tobacco Treatment

Tobacco dependence is the most consequential target to reduce the burden of lung cancer worldwide. Quitting after a cancer diagnosis can improve cancer prognosis, overall health, and quality of life. Several oncology professional organizations have issued guidelines stressing the importance of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. Providing tobacco treatment in the context of lung cancer screening is another opportunity to further reduce death from lung cancer. In this review, the authors describe the current state of tobacco dependence treatment focusing on new paradigms and approaches and their particular relevance for persons at risk or on treatment for lung cancer.

The effectiveness of distance‐based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors: A meta‐analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P = .007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.31, P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I² = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I² = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

Fit & quit: An efficacy trial of two behavioral post-cessation weight gain interventions

While smoking cessation leads to significant improvements in both mortality and morbidity, post-cessation weight gain partially attenuates this benefit. Even though post-cessation weight gain is small (4.7 kg on average), it is a stated reason to delay cessation attempts and is associated with smoking relapse. Fit & Quit is a randomized, controlled efficacy trial that aims to examine the ability of a weight stability intervention and a weight loss intervention to reduce post-cessation weight gain. For this purpose, Fit & Quit will randomize participants to three conditions: (a) Small Changes, a weight gain prevention intervention; (b) Look AHEAD Intensive Lifestyle Intervention; and (c) a lower-intensity bibliotherapy intervention. All conditions will receive a highly efficacious behavioral (i.e., rate reduction skills, motivational interviewing) and pharmacological (i.e., varenicline) smoking cessation program. A total of 400 participants will be recruited and randomized to the three interventions. Participants will be recruited in waves, with 10 waves of approximately 40 participants per wave. The primary outcomes of this study include post-cessation weight gain and cessation status at 12-month follow-up. Fit & Quit will integrate and adapt the strongest evidence-based interventions available for weight management and smoking cessation. Fit & Quit is highly innovative in the areas of the target population, study design, and use of technology. For these reasons, we expect that Fit & Quit will make a significant public health contribution to curtailing the important cessation barrier of post-cessation weight gain.

Smoking Prevalence and Management Among Cancer Survivors

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis can lead to development of potential treatment interactions, secondary cancers, and comorbid conditions. The purpose of this article is to examine the prevalence of smoking after diagnosis and present current management strategies.
.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The terms cancer, survivorship, behavior, smoking, and quitlines were searched in PubMed and CINAHL® from the start of the databases to December 2016. Statistics, guidelines, and background information were obtained from websites of organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
.

DATA EVALUATION

Of 17 relevant articles, 12 were analyzed to identify variables among survivors who continued to smoke versus those who successfully quit. Five articles were analyzed to identify characteristics of successful smoking cessation interventions.
.

SYNTHESIS

Survivors who are younger, female, and not partnered and those who report less socioeconomic and psychosocial support may be at greater risk for continued smoking. Peer counseling, cognitive behavioral therapy exercises, and use of frameworks to guide interventions are unique properties of successful cessation interventions.
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Continued research on cancer-specific tobacco cessation interventions and exploration of why current evidence-based therapies are not working in this population are warranted.

Why Don't Cancer Survivors Quit Smoking? An Evaluation of Readiness for Smoking Cessation in Cancer Survivors

Background

Cancer survivors have a high rate of participation in cigarette-smoking cessation programs but their smoking-abstinence rates remain low. In the current study, we evaluated the readiness to quit smoking in a cancer-survivor population.

Methods

Cross-sectional data survey conducted among 112 adult cancer survivors who smoked cigarettes in Tennessee. Analyses were conducted using a two-sample t-test, χ² test, Fishers Exact test, and multivariable logistic regression with smoker’s readiness to quit as the dependent variable. We operationally defined a smoker not ready to quit as anyone interested in quitting smoking beyond the next 6 months or longer (or not at all), as compared to those that are ready to quit within the next 6 months.

Results

Thirty-three percent of participants displayed a readiness to quit smoking in the next 30 days. Smokers ready to quit were more likely to display high confidence in their ability to quit (OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1–9.7; P < 0.0001) than those not ready to quit. Those ready to quit were nearly five times more likely to believe smoking contributed to their cancer diagnosis (OR = 4.9; 95% CI, 1.1–22.6; P = 0.0432). Those ready to quit were also much more likely to attempt smoking cessation when diagnosed with cancer (OR = 8.9; 95% CI, 1.8–44.3; P = 0.0076) than smokers not ready to quit. Finally, those ready to quit were more likely to endorse smoking more in the morning than other times of the day, compared to those not ready to quit (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 1.5–42,3; P = 0.0148), which increased odds of readiness to quit within the next 6 months.

Conclusions

Despite high participation in smoking-cessation programs for cancer survivors, only one-third of participants were ready to quit. Future research is needed to develop programs targeting effective strategies promoting smoking cessation among cancer survivors who are both ready and not ready to quit smoking.

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.

Operating on Patients Who Smoke: A Survey of Thoracic Surgeons in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although preoperative smoking is associated with increased postoperative complications in patients who undergo major thoracic surgical procedures, there are no national guidelines that address the patient's preoperative tobacco use. This study examined the typical preoperative management of thoracic surgical patients who are smokers.

METHODS

The link to an anonymous survey was emailed to cardiothoracic surgeons in the United States. The survey included questions regarding the likelihood of a surgeon to offer surgery and strategies used to assist patients in quitting smoking before surgery.

RESULTS

The majority of the 158 surgeons who responded to the survey were general thoracic surgeons (68%, 107 of 158), in an academic practice (57%, 90 of 158), with more than 15 years of experience (51%, 81 of 158). An overwhelming majority of respondents (98.1%, 155 of 158) considered smoking preoperatively a risk factor for postoperative complications. The most common cessation strategy offered to smokers was pharmacologic intervention (77%, 122 of 158). Nearly half of the surgeons (47%, 74 of 156) would not perform certain operations in a patient who was a current smoker, but only 14% (10 of 74) tested patients preoperatively for smoking. Thoracic surgeons (odds ratio 2.1, p = 0.0379) and surgeons in academic practice (odds ratio 1.9, p = 0.057) were more likely to deny certain surgeries to current smokers. Two thirds of the surgeons (66%, 48 of 74) thought that the ideal wait time from smoking cessation to surgery was 2 to 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant disagreement in the cardiothoracic surgical community regarding how to treat patients who smoke, especially when deciding to deny or postpone surgery. Prospective studies and guidelines are needed.

Engagement in High-Risk Behaviors Among Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer Compared to Healthy Same-Age Peers Surveyed in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

PURPOSE

This secondary data analysis compared smoking rates, alcohol consumption, and binge drinking, and examined risk factors for engaging in these behaviors among 90 young adult-aged childhood cancer survivors (CSS) with 15,490 young adults in the general population.

METHODS

The sample was drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The sampling distribution of these healthy matched young adults was estimated through the use of bootstrapping, which involved randomly repeated for 10,000 samples of healthy controls.

RESULTS

The findings of repeated sampling analysis revealed that CCS were more likely to smoke daily (34.5% vs. 20.6 healthy matched controls; p = 0.03). The proportion of respondents who had any signs of alcohol abuse symptoms was 72.2% of CCS compared with 81.1% of matched controls (p = 0.16), while CCS with severe alcohol abuse was 51.1% compared with 59.1% of matched controls (p = 0.28). Whether they engaged in binge drinking in the past 12 months was 43.3% for CCS and 46.4% for healthy respondents. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine predictors of smoking, alcohol use, and binge drinking among CCS. Smoking was very strongly associated with optimism. An optimism score of one unit higher was associated with a 39% reduction in odds of smoking (odd ratio [OR] = 0.61, p < 0.0001). Black CSS were less likely to smoke (OR = 0.15, p < 0.05). CCS in good health were more likely to binge drink (OR = 3.67, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Data generated from this secondary data analyses add to the evidence base about the engagement in high risk behaviors among young adult-aged CCS. These findings further emphasize the need for widespread, available effective theory-based screening guidelines and interventions.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Integration of tobacco cessation services into multidisciplinary lung cancer care: rationale, state of the art, and future directions

Tobacco use is the largest risk factor for lung cancer and many lung cancer patients still smoke at the time of diagnosis. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend that all patients receive evidence-based tobacco treatment, implementation of these services in oncology practices is inconsistent and inadequate. Multidisciplinary lung cancer treatment programs offer an ideal environment to optimally deliver effective smoking cessation services. This article reviews best practice recommendations and current status of tobacco treatment for oncology patients, and provides recommendations to optimize delivery of tobacco treatment in multidisciplinary practice.